The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the Trump administration, allowing nearly $2 billion in foreign aid to be released to USAID contractors. This ruling enforced a lower court's decision despite dissent from Justice Alito, who expressed concern over the power a single district-court judge may wield in compelling the government to distribute taxpayer dollars. He argued the decision could lead to irreparable harm to the administration and result in significant financial loss for taxpayers. Alito's dissent highlighted worries about the implications of judicial overreach.
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.
The Government has represented that it would probably be unable to recover much of the money after it is paid because it would be quickly spent by the recipients or disbursed to third parties.
The Supreme Court made a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
The relief ordered by the Supreme Court is, quite simply, too extreme a response.
Collection
[
|
...
]