The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to block a federal judge’s order requiring the release of nearly $2 billion in frozen foreign aid funds on March 5. The 5-4 ruling, issued without detailed analysis, permits the continuation of payments to contractors and nonprofits for work completed prior to February 13, 2025, while directing the district court to clarify compliance timelines. 

The dispute originated from President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14169, issued shortly after his January 2025 inauguration, which imposed a 90-day freeze on all congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds administered by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The order aimed to review programs for “efficiency and consistency” with administration priorities but immediately disrupted payments to American contractors and nonprofits managing global health, democracy-building, and development projects.

Two coalitions of plaintiffs—including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Global Health Council, and Chemonics International—filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing the freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional separation of powers. They contended the pause was ultra vires, lacked rational justification, and caused irreparable harm, forcing layoffs, program suspensions, and organizational closures.

On February 13, Judge Amir Ali granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting the freeze, citing “devastating effects” on plaintiffs and finding their APA challenges likely to succeed. When the administration delayed disbursements, Ali issued a February 25 enforcement order demanding payment of $2 billion for pre-freeze work by February 26. The government, asserting sovereign immunity and jurisdictional overreach, appealed to the D.C. Circuit and sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.

The unsigned order from the Court’s majority—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—denied the administration’s application to vacate Ali’s enforcement order. While acknowledging the February 26 deadline had passed, the Court emphasized the district court must “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 ruling effectively upholds the judiciary’s authority to enforce monetary relief against executive agencies under the APA, despite the administration’s claims that sovereign immunity bars such orders. The majority deferred to ongoing proceedings in the district court, where Judge Ali held a March 6 hearing and set a new deadline of March 10 for partial payments to plaintiffs.

In a sharply worded dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Samuel Alito condemned the majority for endorsing an “act of judicial hubris.” He argued the enforcement order should have been classified as a preliminary injunction—not a TRO—making it subject to appellate review. By allowing a single judge to mandate “irreversible” payments, Alito warned the Court risked enabling “unchecked power” over taxpayer funds.

Subsequent District Court Proceedings

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Ali convened a March 6 hearing to reassess compliance. The State Department disclosed it had released $70 million overnight to plaintiffs, with attorneys pledging to expedite remaining payments. Ali ordered the administration to disburse all invoices from plaintiffs for pre-February 13 work by March 10 at 6:00 p.m. ET, while exempting non-litigants.

During the hearing, Justice Department attorney Indraneel Sur argued the freeze had effectively ended, with agencies resuming payments after case-by-case reviews. Plaintiffs countered that without a preliminary injunction—set to expire March 10—the administration could revert to withholding funds.