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.
I was really hoping you would weigh in on this ruling—thank you. I expect this spittle-flecked intemperance from Alito but I must say I find it a bit alarming that the other three would sign on to that language. This seems also an alarmingly pointed attack on a district court judge—it comes off as more an effort at intimidation than a coherent effort to articulate legal error.
Trump will keep insisting on impeaching judges that follow laws and disagree with him. What is to become of the “business” parts of law? Academia, lawyers…Eventually, like our EXTREME Court one would bow to the corruption. Like in Russia’s play along court system. Dangerous times.
After giving a President immunity? After punting Roe to the states fully knowing chaos would ensue? The corruption of the courts with Citizens United, Leonard Leo’s religious and cash infusions? I disagree. This is a transnational criminal network in our government.
The Daily Beast: “Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett sparked a MAGA meltdown Wednesday by siding with three liberal justices to reject the Trump administration’s request to withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid.”
Wow you wrote all this while at the gate. I am impressed. As a layman it helped a lot to explain what was happening. You make it understandable. Harry Litman wrote about it early but you went into more detail. Thanks for this update.
The government has to pay for the services rendered complete. Period. Trump can freeze those future things, and also has the power to stop work. But he doesn’t have the power not to pay for work done.
Steve, aren’t there some basic contract law issues at stake here too? The Alito four are effectively arguing that private parties cannot use the judiciary to enforce contracts with the government. That would appear to be a rather stunning and dangerous exemption from an important pillar of established legal order.
Thank you - this was incredibly helpful. Curious about Kavanaugh here, though, as he’s trended a little more moderate in comparison to his right-wing brethren. A little surprised he joined the dissent in this case.
One more time, thank you, Steve, for your analysis and for your clarity in expressing what happened. This piece took a lot of effort and is very worthwhile.
“hypocrisy with statements that are either materially incorrect or, at the very least misleading” (about Alito). A very polite understatement. He infuriates me!
Steve, on the question of timing of the ORder today, it seems to me to not be impossible that it was Justice Alito who held it up, until after Trump's speech last night. To avoid a "Trump loses" headline before the ... "triumphant" speech. No?
As an aside, this is kind of like the "who benefits most from leaking Dobbs" question.....
Interesting thought. The look of discomfort on the Cheif Justice's face when Trump stooped to say "Thank You" as well as the timing of the release of the decision suggests that Roberts at least knew which way the wind was blowing
It is amazing that four Justices of the Supreme Court claim to not understand the fundamentals of contract law, even for government contracts. If a contract is entered by both parties and one party performs the work under the contract and then submits its invoice for payment. it is the contractual obligation of the contracting party to pay the invoice. If that is not the fundamental law here in the eyes of four Justices, then they have entered into never-never land where people cannot rely on the US. government to honor its obligations.
How does taking shots at the president and the dissenters "newsletter that aims to make the U.S. Supreme Court more accessible to all of us." I want non-partisan analysis not left wing snark.
thank you for this analysis. I'm stubbornly going to see it as hopeful that the court has not, like Alito, simply abandoned the rule of law. SURELY an order to pay actual debts is part of our system? We know DUMP has never considered that an obstacle to stiffing contractors, but he got away with it by making a contract so expensive in fees to enforce that the stiffed just went away. I don't know if he ever actually WON one of these cases. (I'm sure contractors occasionally breached themselves, if all of those he refused to pay did, I'd have to say he is very bad at choosing good contractors). Here, he's got plaintiffs willing to spend the fees to oppose him.
Alito's dissent strikes me as one more nail in the coffin of the trust our allies have in our government's commitment to its commitments. I'm pretty sure Zelensky feels the same way.
We haven't yet got to 1984's "Peace is War" equation. We are just at "Peace is giving in to aggressors if our leaders happen to be sufficiently flattered by said aggressors."
"The broader takeaway, though, is the role of the Court in Trump cases . . ."
I think the broader takeaway is the exposure of the absurdities that are funded by the American taxpayer, the amount we borrow to fund the absurdities, and the extent to which the entrenched institutions and interests will fight to keep the absurdity train rolling. We shall see how this all shakes out. SCOTUS is merely playing its part in the dramatic performance.
Professor Vladeck critique of the Alito opinion is unassailable and understated. However, it is clear that there are 4 Justices who are prepared to rewrite the Constitution depending solely upon who is in the White House. The Trump impoundment claim here is even broader than the Nixon claim of impoundment that was rejected by a Unanimous Supreme Court. Nixon was trying to impound funds appropriated for work to be performed in the future. Here, as Professor Vladeck quite properly emphasizes ,the money was appropriated and the work authorized has been completed. It is one thing for Trump to stiff his lawyers; any lawyer enfeebled enough to work for him in his public or private capacity deserves what he or she gets. It is quite another for Trump to withhold payments for which the work has been performed as authorized by Congress including a number of Republican Senators. The dissent in this case cannot be squared with the dissent in the Biden case. Thus it is clear that there is at least one supposed Originalist who holds that the power of Congress to appropriate and spend money depends upon the name and party of the President in Office. And surely at least 2 of the Justices who signed onto the dissent realize this. That is an Ethical issue that should be called out as such.
Hey, thank you from writing from an airport gate! This is super helpful!
I was really hoping you would weigh in on this ruling—thank you. I expect this spittle-flecked intemperance from Alito but I must say I find it a bit alarming that the other three would sign on to that language. This seems also an alarmingly pointed attack on a district court judge—it comes off as more an effort at intimidation than a coherent effort to articulate legal error.
Trump will keep insisting on impeaching judges that follow laws and disagree with him. What is to become of the “business” parts of law? Academia, lawyers…Eventually, like our EXTREME Court one would bow to the corruption. Like in Russia’s play along court system. Dangerous times.
That's a pretty extreme forecast to read out of two SCOTUS decisions AGAINST Trump.
After giving a President immunity? After punting Roe to the states fully knowing chaos would ensue? The corruption of the courts with Citizens United, Leonard Leo’s religious and cash infusions? I disagree. This is a transnational criminal network in our government.
The Daily Beast: “Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett sparked a MAGA meltdown Wednesday by siding with three liberal justices to reject the Trump administration’s request to withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid.”
Wow you wrote all this while at the gate. I am impressed. As a layman it helped a lot to explain what was happening. You make it understandable. Harry Litman wrote about it early but you went into more detail. Thanks for this update.
The government has to pay for the services rendered complete. Period. Trump can freeze those future things, and also has the power to stop work. But he doesn’t have the power not to pay for work done.
Steve, aren’t there some basic contract law issues at stake here too? The Alito four are effectively arguing that private parties cannot use the judiciary to enforce contracts with the government. That would appear to be a rather stunning and dangerous exemption from an important pillar of established legal order.
Thank you - this was incredibly helpful. Curious about Kavanaugh here, though, as he’s trended a little more moderate in comparison to his right-wing brethren. A little surprised he joined the dissent in this case.
One more time, thank you, Steve, for your analysis and for your clarity in expressing what happened. This piece took a lot of effort and is very worthwhile.
Thank you! Still seems scary that four Justices would have gone the other way. v/r
“hypocrisy with statements that are either materially incorrect or, at the very least misleading” (about Alito). A very polite understatement. He infuriates me!
Steve, on the question of timing of the ORder today, it seems to me to not be impossible that it was Justice Alito who held it up, until after Trump's speech last night. To avoid a "Trump loses" headline before the ... "triumphant" speech. No?
As an aside, this is kind of like the "who benefits most from leaking Dobbs" question.....
Interesting thought. The look of discomfort on the Cheif Justice's face when Trump stooped to say "Thank You" as well as the timing of the release of the decision suggests that Roberts at least knew which way the wind was blowing
Undoubtedly. Although that remark ought to make any Chief Justice of an Independent branch uncomfortable, at any time.
Trump simply knows no bounds. Of propriety, let alone other aspects.
It is amazing that four Justices of the Supreme Court claim to not understand the fundamentals of contract law, even for government contracts. If a contract is entered by both parties and one party performs the work under the contract and then submits its invoice for payment. it is the contractual obligation of the contracting party to pay the invoice. If that is not the fundamental law here in the eyes of four Justices, then they have entered into never-never land where people cannot rely on the US. government to honor its obligations.
Thank you for the analysis! It’s very saddening to see SCOTUS justices writing like complete partisan hacks.
How does taking shots at the president and the dissenters "newsletter that aims to make the U.S. Supreme Court more accessible to all of us." I want non-partisan analysis not left wing snark.
thank you for this analysis. I'm stubbornly going to see it as hopeful that the court has not, like Alito, simply abandoned the rule of law. SURELY an order to pay actual debts is part of our system? We know DUMP has never considered that an obstacle to stiffing contractors, but he got away with it by making a contract so expensive in fees to enforce that the stiffed just went away. I don't know if he ever actually WON one of these cases. (I'm sure contractors occasionally breached themselves, if all of those he refused to pay did, I'd have to say he is very bad at choosing good contractors). Here, he's got plaintiffs willing to spend the fees to oppose him.
Alito's dissent strikes me as one more nail in the coffin of the trust our allies have in our government's commitment to its commitments. I'm pretty sure Zelensky feels the same way.
We haven't yet got to 1984's "Peace is War" equation. We are just at "Peace is giving in to aggressors if our leaders happen to be sufficiently flattered by said aggressors."
Vance is a HILL BULLY!
"The broader takeaway, though, is the role of the Court in Trump cases . . ."
I think the broader takeaway is the exposure of the absurdities that are funded by the American taxpayer, the amount we borrow to fund the absurdities, and the extent to which the entrenched institutions and interests will fight to keep the absurdity train rolling. We shall see how this all shakes out. SCOTUS is merely playing its part in the dramatic performance.
There's nothing absurd about funding health care and saving lives.
Professor Vladeck critique of the Alito opinion is unassailable and understated. However, it is clear that there are 4 Justices who are prepared to rewrite the Constitution depending solely upon who is in the White House. The Trump impoundment claim here is even broader than the Nixon claim of impoundment that was rejected by a Unanimous Supreme Court. Nixon was trying to impound funds appropriated for work to be performed in the future. Here, as Professor Vladeck quite properly emphasizes ,the money was appropriated and the work authorized has been completed. It is one thing for Trump to stiff his lawyers; any lawyer enfeebled enough to work for him in his public or private capacity deserves what he or she gets. It is quite another for Trump to withhold payments for which the work has been performed as authorized by Congress including a number of Republican Senators. The dissent in this case cannot be squared with the dissent in the Biden case. Thus it is clear that there is at least one supposed Originalist who holds that the power of Congress to appropriate and spend money depends upon the name and party of the President in Office. And surely at least 2 of the Justices who signed onto the dissent realize this. That is an Ethical issue that should be called out as such.