Sammy Alito Says Trump Doesn’t Have to Pay Lockheed’s Bills
After a delay of a week, SCOTUS has finally issued an order denying the government’s attempt to turn its own contempt into an appeal of a Temporary Restraining Order.
The language denying the stay (which could have been released last week) is circumspect.
On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order. On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated
But not Sammy Alito’s dissent, joined by Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
He accepts the government’s misrepresentation of the posture of the case, not to mention the government’s conceit that the injury to the government — an inability to recover uncontested past due claims — is greater than shutting down companies forever (which may happen regardless). He even misrepresents that these are contractors and grant recipients providing services ordered by Congress, not some children who won an award.
Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.
In capsule form, this is what happened. Respondents are a group of American businesses and nonprofits that receive foreign-assistance funds from the State Department and the U. S. Agency for International Development. They brought suit and claimed that the current administration’s temporary pause of foreign-assistance payments is unlawful. On February 13, 2025, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the Government to halt its funding pause. It based that decision on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed in showing that the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). After issuing the TRO, the District Judge grew frustrated with the pace at which funds were being disbursed, and on February 25, he issued a second order requiring the Government to pay out approximately $2 billion. The judge brushed aside the Government’s argument that sovereign immunity barred this enforcement order, and he took two steps that, unless corrected, would prevent any higher court from reviewing and possibly stopping the payments. First, he labeled the order as a non-appealable TRO, and second, he demanded that the money be paid within 36 hours.
The word “contempt” does not show up in Sammy’s opinion at all.
I mean, sure, there is plenty of contempt, directed at Amir Ali (perhaps not coincidentally the first Muslim and Arab American DC District Judge). But no discussion about the government having contemptuously blown off a court order.
Probably, John Roberts at least would be sympathetic with giving USAID the two weeks they claimed to need to make payments that would have been made in hours before the DOGE boys started breaking things. But he’s not yet ready to create a new precedent sanctioning government contempt.
Update: I did a little annotation of Sammy A’s key deceit, treating plaintiffs as recipients of “foreign assistance payments” rather than contractors who provided a service to the government.
4 justices signed on to this hot garbage? My God.
But not Amy Coney Barrett – and I believe it is true that she has NOT been with the band of joiners before.
You take what little you can get with this lopsided SCOTUS.
Barrett was the lone caveat among the so-called “conservatives” on last year’s presidential immunity catastrophe; she alone asserted that evidence from otherwise “immune” (that is, “official”) acts ought to be allowed in legal proceedings.
Because Barrett is hands down the smartest of all this group, her displays of independence should be noticed, commended, and taken as a potential route for future pleadings to this court. While Roberts remains concerned about his legacy, Barrett seems focused on rational legal process.
“Focused on rational legal process.” Relatively speaking. Yes. Objectively compared to the Warren Court? No.
Barrett is now being attacked as a “DEI judge”
by Jack POSOBIEC, Catturd et al:
[See the Meidas Touch screenshot, here]
https://bsky.app/profile/nationalsecuritylaw.org/post/3ljnolxevrd2v
March 5, 2025 at 2:10 PM
Vladeck is keeping track of this particular 5-4 lineup:
https://bsky.app/profile/stevevladeck.bsky.social/post/3ljnkgsd4i22j
March 5, 2025 at 12:55 PM
Interesting end to Steve Mazie’s THREAD about this:
https://bsky.app/profile/stevenmazie.bsky.social/post/3ljn5ebm3x22h
March 5, 2025 at 9:01 AM
Something else that ALSO happened last night,
“right
beforeafter [TRUMP]approachedleft the rostrum.”AND was heard by MANY:
https://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.social/post/3ljma42ek5227
March 5, 2025 at 12:18 AM
I saw that order 1, too.
Well, that’s not surprising in the least. :-)
I’m sorry if I missed where you mentioned it.
Any guesses what it might mean?
Oh, I didn’t mention it. No worries anyway, always appreciate your contributions.
No idea what it means.
Thank you, Marcy!
“…unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?”
If Congress authorized the payments, then the judge is GD right that the “Government of the United States” (apparently to these chowder heads, in the form of the Executive Branch alone) shall be compelled to pay out the sum. It’s right in the Constitution.
They aren’t even pretending to present coherent legal arguments. It’s a good day to be a hedge funder.
I assume Sammy Alito pays his bills. Why does he think that government shouldn’t have to do that?
It’s not so much that the Gov’t shouldn’t have to pay its bills. The nub of his dissent is hierarchy. How dare someone lower than me make that decision? District court judges should know their proper (social) place. It’s class-based thinking.
Good point. Trump’s known for not paying his bills. The Greed and Grifter in Chief teaching others to stiff contracts.
PJ, You asked why Alito thinks “the government” shouldn’t pay its bills. I think we need to remember how situational his “jurisprudence” really is. Alito means THIS (MAGA) government. We can be certain the same rule would not apply were Joe Biden, “the worst president in American history,” trying to cancel funding for law clerks.
As for the contempt that Dr. EW discusses in the post, to me it resides entirely in the phrase Alito used in his slap down of Judge Ali, “sovereign immunity.” Trump is SOVEREIGN. Anything he does has IMMUNITY…including from puny little district judges, apparently.
I have no respect for those five justices. They sold their souls for power (and money), and they’ll never have to answer for decisions like Shelby County and Citizens United, that have damaged the country.
Also, Alito doesn’t seem to have thought past what he wanted – if The Felon Guy has immunity and is sovereign, there’s nothing to stop him from deciding he doesn’t need SCCOTUS any more, or any other courts that aren’t loyal only to him.
Steve Vladek discusses this versus Alito in United States v. Texas last year in his One First substack “129. Untangling the Foreign Aid Ruling.”
Take the win.
The real question is what Judge Ali can do with it. What we need is him to get to the other 55B in aid that was cancelled and get it out there in the public how it was done. It’s all being done by lack of staturoy authority. Force the DOGE to admit how they are canceling programs.
Marcy,
You quoting Sammy A. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? Sammy’s stun, is not unlike the shock, of Casa Blanca’s, Gendarme.
Yes bills must be paid! Even when Trump’s, whigny little voice creams but i don’t want to pay my bills.
Ali has taken the next step:
https://bsky.app/profile/mikesacks.bsky.social/post/3ljnme673cs2i
March 5, 2025 at 1:30 PM
Sacks has kept a long running THREAD of each step in this SAGA since 2/11/25.
It can be seen by scrolling up from the above comment.
We can take the win AND shine a light on the dissenters’ batshit arguments. That’s what this site is all about.
Steve Vladeck with an extra edition of his One First:
129. Untangling the Foreign Aid Ruling
There’s a lot going on in the Court’s cryptic, 5-4 ruling in the foreign aid funding cases. Here’s my (very) quick attempt to unpack some of the most important takeaways. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/129-untangling-the-foreign-aid-ruling Steve Vladeck Mar 05, 2025
That was the same sentence that jumped out at me. It seems like a trap. As in, “the Government” can stipulate some murderously slashed version of “obligations” so as to evade the accountability sought by plaintiffs.
Geidner [see below] writes about that sentence, too…
calls it the fourth “dark warning”.
And here’s Chris Geidner:
The Supreme Court, barely, upholds our three-branch system of government A bright light — and several dark warnings — in Wednesday’s 5-4 vote rejecting the Trump admin’s request to toss out a district court order requiring USAID payments. https://www.lawdork.com/p/supreme-court-usaid-payments-order
Chris Geidner Mar 05, 2025
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?”
Any further legal thoughts on a Supreme Court Justice ASKING RHETORICALLY whether the judicial branch can check the executive?
The district court issued an order, and the administration has the right to appeal, all the way up to SCOTUS (and directly to SCOTUS in an emergency), right? What does Alito want parties to do, sue the government in SCOTUS directly and just skip the district and appellate courts? Or does he want them to sue at the district court but have the district court call him to ask what it should do?
In the words of PM Trudeau, “Make it make sense.”
I suspect Alito wouldn’t be saying a damned word if the lower court judge had upheld the aid block and THAT had been appealed up to the SCOTUS…
Not only is Sammy really angry that a pissant lower court judge dared to order his boss around, but he’s even more angry that the judge didn’t rule the way HE would have.
“In the words of PM Trudeau, “Make it make sense.””
I’m afraid we are well past the “make it make sense” stage, because we’re now getting a straight-faced consideration of the lie that 150 year old SS recipients still getting their benefits. A lie travels, and all that.
they’re making money from the SS busy work too…. and wasting time. straight off the SS website when i just checked…
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/#2025-03-05
That “lose forever” thing is great. Why are we “losing forever” the taxpayer-funded 6 figure salaries for DOGEbags? Or funds for armored cyber trucks? Why pay taxes when it means I lose money FOREVER?
I have been asking myself why I should obey the law if the government doesn’t. I am wondering what the most effective form of civil disobedience might be. Put my tax payments in escrow, to be paid when the US government restores funding to congressionally authorized programs? Something a bit simpler?
With the disemboweling of the IRS being proposed, I don’t think they’d even notice if you put your payments in escrow
Today on British, Channel 4 News, Timothy Snyder, gives a great interview, laying out and answering many of your questions and concerns regarding Trump’s motivations, direction, etc. on youtube
Here’s the link to that video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vea2fTYYypM
The way things are going, it wouldn’t surprise me if DOGE laid off the entire judicial branch.
email: “Report 5 rulings in the past week that have favored the Trump admin, or you’re fired. Nevermind, you’re just fired.”
Roberts: What’s this letter from my bank saying the Treasury debited my paycheck?