Supreme Court lets Trump withhold billions in foreign aid, citing "harm" to president's foreign policy ability if denied

[bigtree]

...which they say would outweigh potential harm to the plaintiffs.

Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Trump's administration to withhold more than $4 billion in foreign aid funding, granting its request for emergency relief in a dispute over money that Congress has already approved.

The high court's decision effectively extends an order that Chief Justice John Roberts had issued earlier this month, which temporarily froze a district court injunction requiring the Trump administration to spend the money Congress appropriated for foreign-aid projects by the end of September. The court appeared to divide 6-3, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's three liberals, dissenting.

The Supreme Court said in an unsigned order that the harm to the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign affairs appears to outweigh the potential harm faced by the plaintiffs, which are organizations and businesses that receive funding for foreign aid projects. It added that the decision "should not be read as a final determination on the merits. The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief."

The dispute before the justices involves a tranche of more than $4 billion Congress approved last year for overseas development assistance, peacekeeping operations and to promote democracy globally, among other priorities. Mr. Trump notified Congress last month that he is seeking to claw back $4.9 billion before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 through a maneuver known as a "pocket rescission."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-lets-trump-withhold-4-billion-in-foreign-aid-approved-by-congress/ar-AA1NnUUi

...since the interests of the plaintiffs in this suit, which are organizations and businesses that receive funding for foreign aid projects, have been determined to mean squat opposed to the president's, I wonder of it would have made any difference to the court if it was Congress suing the administration, given that it's actually their prerogative in appropriating the funds?

Just asking for a future Democratic majority. Of course, we'll have to wait and see how the Court ultimately destroys precedent.

[JBTaurus83]

1. As long as these six are on the court

We could win both houses and the presidency and they would just block everything.

[bigtree]

3. probably

...but we still haven't really gotten to the question of Congress' authority, I'd guess because Congress hasn't been the plaintiff, just affected parties like state AGs, for instance.

I'm anxious to get to the question of Congress' authority in their appropriations, and the president's ability to thwart THEM, not the just the instruments of those appropriations.

[Lovie777]

2. Life saving aid................

therefore, the 6 RW justices only care about shithole than the lives the aid would have helped.

Got ya.

[B.See]

4. How many victories IN A ROW has his criminal court

handed to Trump? Think I read it was something like twenty? Criminal.

[bigtree]

6. thing is, most of them are aquiescing without actually ruling on the merits

...and doing this thing of making decisions without explanation, advantaging the 'shadow docket' emergency appeals that don't require explanation for rulings which are actually interim.

So the final decision on this hasn't been made. They still have to muddle over precedent to get to where they allow this, and make some decision on Congress' prerogatives, I'd think.

[FBaggins]

8. Most of them can't be on the merits

In most cases they’re dealing with preliminary injunctions by the lower courts. They don’t have a “merits” record to uphold or overturn

[bigtree]

9. exactly

...and we really haven't gotten to questions about Congress' authority vs. the Executive desires in any direct way; certainly not any suit actually coming from the republican held Congress.

[Arazi]

11. Next Dem trifecta needs to re-shape the courts

Every Dem in any election needs to promise to pack SCOTUS at minimum.

Roberts is proving himself worse than Taney. May he also go down in infamy forever

[Takket]

5. SCOTUS has effectivly eliminated Congress and the Counrts are branches of government

if, "if the president wants to do it (or not do it) is all that matters", then there is effectively no more judicial or legislative branch. drumpf alone is the sole arbiter of what gets spent and what it is spent on.

[bigtree]

7. in the process of

...mostly, I believe, because this republican majority won't stand up for their own authority under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is content to let that muddle stand while not restricting the administration from continuing to do what have been illegal things in the long past.

We really haven't had a plaintiff coming before the courts arguing in behalf of Congress' prerogatives, yet.

[Arazi]

10. Why should Dems compromise on any spending bills ever again if Traitor can just grab the $$ anyway

What incentives are there for any opposition party to agree on any of it since their compromises make them look weak to their base and the President can just decide to spend it how he/she wants?

[sinkingfeeling]

12. So now TSF can override whatever Congress agrees to. Wonder what happened to 'checks and balances"?

[question everything]

13. With all the beneficial rulings, we should be grateful that the Supremes did not declare him the winner

of the 2000 elections

[JCMach1]

14. Scotus is usurping the Legislative Branch