Payment for work done can’t be stopped: US top court

Surprisingly, the conservatives-dominated Supreme Court had upheld the judgment of Washington-based District Court Judge Amir Ali’s order that the US government cannot withhold payments to foreign contractors and workers for work done.

The court in a 5-4 unsigned order asked Judge Ali to consider the feasible time-frame for compliance of payments order. Six of the nine Supreme Court judges are conservatives appointed by Republican presidents, including Chief Justice John Roberts. But in an interesting division, two of them, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, went with the three liberal judges. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting judgment for the four conservative judges, questioning the authority of a district judge to interfere in the decision of the executive. The liberal majority did not offer any opinion except directing the district judge. Judge Ali had set the deadline of February 26 to disburse $2 billion owed to foreign agencies. The majority directed Judge Ali to “clarify what obligations the government must fulfil to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard to the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” The Trump government did not question the authority of the district judge but it questioned the short deadline.

Justice Alito had expressed a strong opinion against District Judge Ali’s order, questioning his authority and jurisdiction. He wrote: “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 billon taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No’, but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris said the administration was given too little time to scrutinise the invoices “to ensure legitimacy of all payments”. Harris described Ali’s direction as an “impossible order”, and said in her filing, “Ordering the United States to pay all pending requests under foreign-aid instruments on a timeline of the district court’s choosing – without regard to whether the requests are legitimate, or even due yet – intrudes on the President’s broad foreign-affairs powers and upends the systems the Executive Branch has established to disburse aid.”

The majority decision of the Supreme Court has shown that President Trump cannot be overenthusiastic in freezing aid money abruptly, and that the courts would defend the rights of aid agencies which have done their work under the aid programme.

The Supreme Court has not taken any view on the merits of the policy – and this court with its conservative bent of mind is not likely to do so either – but it has shown that it would protect the rights and interests of the aid workers at home and abroad. President Trump and his aides are likely to resent judicial intervention because they want to take decisions as quickly as possible because they feel that they know very clearly in their minds what needs to be done to correct the distortions introduced by the Biden administration.

The judiciary could be seen as putting the brakes on the quick and right decisions that the Executive is taking. But here is where the classical theory of the separation of powers that serves as the framework of the United States’ governmental system comes into play, and it becomes the duty of the judiciary to see to it that the framework holds.

There was also the argument put forward by some experts and aid agencies that President Trump cannot freeze funds voted by the Congress for foreign aid. He can only stop future funding and carry the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate to support his policy. But the court has not commented on the issue because the case that came up before it did not raise any of these issues,