There are two very different ways to understand Wednesday night's order temporarily absolving the government from spending $1.5 billion in obligated funds. We'll know soon enough which one is correct.
I wonder if this bombardment of dubiously legal hack and slash spending cuts and freezes will ever end. Tangentially related, fellow readers, did you know Taiwan and South Korea were not real democracies until 1987? Taiwan basically had a slow roll of reforms from military dictatorship to democracy. South Korea had a student led peaceful revolution.
By the same logic, we didn't extend franchise (and arguably still haven't!) to everyone until VRA in 1965. This is simultaneously comforting and distressing.
I really want to thank you for your hope honesty and humor reporting truth to power with evidence and history. We will find out soon i hope too. It will be raining this weekend but it may be time to rain our voices too. Peace. We are in this together.
Just as no one should be overly enthusiastic about various TROs that only temporarily limit the administration’s actions, no one should be overly alarmed by this Roberts order. We’ll know soon enough where SCOTUS is headed.
I wonder whether Roberts will back Trump simply because he is afraid that Trump will defy his order and he doesn't want the Court to appear impotent. He may be more concerned with maintaining the appearance of a co-equal branch of government than with maintaining democracy. If the Court rules against Trump, maybe some Republicans will grow a backbone.
I have no idea what Roberts thinks will happen if he lets the law apply to Trump but I sure hope he has learned how bad he is at predicting the results of his rulings.
Well, Justice Roberts HS certainly been wrong about some of his predictions about the real world consequences of his decisions, even where he considered them at all.
I understand the legal merits of the stay and get the jurisdictional issues but perhaps Roberts could use some of that country coming together over his wise rulings by denying the administration the air of invulnerability from the courts.
So if in the long run Roberts wants to re-litigate Marbury v. Madison, strike down the Impoundment Act of 1974 (I was literally around at that time and Congress passed it for reasons exactly like where we are now) he has his "marching orders". This court has had no qualms about striking down decades old precedent resulting in giving Trump what he wants-"L'etat-c'est moi", so we'll see how well this plays out if SCOTUS ends up neutering the separation of powers-whether in one fell swoop or bit by bit through piecemeal defiance of TROs around these executive orders.
Thank you for this, maybe, reassuring summary. I would note that, via my son who works for one of the NGO’s involved, the Government aka Peter Marocco spent most of Wednesday canceling the remaining contracts that were on the books in order to be able to at the very least plead that it would be impossible to restore funding so quickly and also just because they are cruel and want Americans working in foreign aid to lose their jobs and people to die. I would hope that at the very least the NGO’s would be able to present this sabotage of the payment system as evidence before SCOTUS for their malign intent
Steve, how does the debt limit play into this discussion? Congress has both ordered the Executive to spend certain money and also not to exceed a certain limit of debt, what leeway does that give the President? Perhaps none for completed work but I could see a scenario in which those grounds can pull together a majority on the Court.
The contracts at issue were already included in spending or budget legislation that was signed into law. Not sure why you say Congress ordered the executive to not exceed a certain debt limit. It's up to Congress whether to raise the debt limit to cover expenditures that it authorized previously.
I agree with you, Steve; it'll be the Goldilocks choice.
But, Trump is not a fan of the Goldilocks approach to jurisprudence. He's more of a scorched-earth kind of guy. And if it's going be the cynical path, he'll love it.
If SCOTUS gives him a sniff of stiffing creditors, Trump will take it and run.
Can you imagine what happens when good ole USA reaches the debt limit (after the GOP shuts down the government -- no 'waste, fraud, and abuse if you close the federal government) and Trump starts negotiating with our debt holders? The billionaaires will be shorting T-bills like crazy, Trump will cut a deal with debt-holding China and put a happy-meal face on it.
Trump and Musk had better get to Fort Knox quick, and spin that gold into DOGEcoin.
The issue in the case was whether the U.S. could enter contracts with Congressionally appropriated funds, the third party contractors then performed the contractually required work and submitted their bill for payment. The Court entered an order requiring the U.S. to live up to its contracts and make payment. The Trump Administration refused to pay and were held in civil contempt and then an enforcement order was entered. In order to comply all the U.S. had to do was honor their contracts by making payment. The U.S. had no irreparable harm as appropriated funds were available. CJ Roberts administrative stay only confirms that the U.S. is an unreliable contract party.
Agreed on all your arguments.
I wonder if this bombardment of dubiously legal hack and slash spending cuts and freezes will ever end. Tangentially related, fellow readers, did you know Taiwan and South Korea were not real democracies until 1987? Taiwan basically had a slow roll of reforms from military dictatorship to democracy. South Korea had a student led peaceful revolution.
By the same logic, we didn't extend franchise (and arguably still haven't!) to everyone until VRA in 1965. This is simultaneously comforting and distressing.
Steve,
I really want to thank you for your hope honesty and humor reporting truth to power with evidence and history. We will find out soon i hope too. It will be raining this weekend but it may be time to rain our voices too. Peace. We are in this together.
Just as no one should be overly enthusiastic about various TROs that only temporarily limit the administration’s actions, no one should be overly alarmed by this Roberts order. We’ll know soon enough where SCOTUS is headed.
I wonder whether Roberts will back Trump simply because he is afraid that Trump will defy his order and he doesn't want the Court to appear impotent. He may be more concerned with maintaining the appearance of a co-equal branch of government than with maintaining democracy. If the Court rules against Trump, maybe some Republicans will grow a backbone.
I have no idea what Roberts thinks will happen if he lets the law apply to Trump but I sure hope he has learned how bad he is at predicting the results of his rulings.
Well, Justice Roberts HS certainly been wrong about some of his predictions about the real world consequences of his decisions, even where he considered them at all.
The Robert’s Court is a Disgrace.
They all should resign in favor of a Court selected by all Circuits alternating between a woman and a man until all Circuits are represented.
We will need a Constitutional amendment to limit the wisdom of the Court to 12 years.
Billionaires buying votes and deciding cases is over.,
I understand the legal merits of the stay and get the jurisdictional issues but perhaps Roberts could use some of that country coming together over his wise rulings by denying the administration the air of invulnerability from the courts.
Given the utterly incompetent coverage in the press, thank God you're posting.
The table has been set for this showdown-from the moment Trump stated "I-we-are the law". https://youtu.be/cO3GeFetnmI?si=wGOh8LkGVX1VZvXE
So if in the long run Roberts wants to re-litigate Marbury v. Madison, strike down the Impoundment Act of 1974 (I was literally around at that time and Congress passed it for reasons exactly like where we are now) he has his "marching orders". This court has had no qualms about striking down decades old precedent resulting in giving Trump what he wants-"L'etat-c'est moi", so we'll see how well this plays out if SCOTUS ends up neutering the separation of powers-whether in one fell swoop or bit by bit through piecemeal defiance of TROs around these executive orders.
Will the affidavit by Clara Doe in support of the TRO get before the Court? It’s devastating.
https://bsky.app/profile/rparloff.bsky.social/post/3lj63uaumak2q
Thank you for this, maybe, reassuring summary. I would note that, via my son who works for one of the NGO’s involved, the Government aka Peter Marocco spent most of Wednesday canceling the remaining contracts that were on the books in order to be able to at the very least plead that it would be impossible to restore funding so quickly and also just because they are cruel and want Americans working in foreign aid to lose their jobs and people to die. I would hope that at the very least the NGO’s would be able to present this sabotage of the payment system as evidence before SCOTUS for their malign intent
Steve, how does the debt limit play into this discussion? Congress has both ordered the Executive to spend certain money and also not to exceed a certain limit of debt, what leeway does that give the President? Perhaps none for completed work but I could see a scenario in which those grounds can pull together a majority on the Court.
The contracts at issue were already included in spending or budget legislation that was signed into law. Not sure why you say Congress ordered the executive to not exceed a certain debt limit. It's up to Congress whether to raise the debt limit to cover expenditures that it authorized previously.
Thanks, Steve. This explication is very useful.
I agree with you, Steve; it'll be the Goldilocks choice.
But, Trump is not a fan of the Goldilocks approach to jurisprudence. He's more of a scorched-earth kind of guy. And if it's going be the cynical path, he'll love it.
If SCOTUS gives him a sniff of stiffing creditors, Trump will take it and run.
Can you imagine what happens when good ole USA reaches the debt limit (after the GOP shuts down the government -- no 'waste, fraud, and abuse if you close the federal government) and Trump starts negotiating with our debt holders? The billionaaires will be shorting T-bills like crazy, Trump will cut a deal with debt-holding China and put a happy-meal face on it.
Trump and Musk had better get to Fort Knox quick, and spin that gold into DOGEcoin.
Another comprehensive explanation of this stay, and its implications. Thanks.
Appreciate the explanation!
The issue in the case was whether the U.S. could enter contracts with Congressionally appropriated funds, the third party contractors then performed the contractually required work and submitted their bill for payment. The Court entered an order requiring the U.S. to live up to its contracts and make payment. The Trump Administration refused to pay and were held in civil contempt and then an enforcement order was entered. In order to comply all the U.S. had to do was honor their contracts by making payment. The U.S. had no irreparable harm as appropriated funds were available. CJ Roberts administrative stay only confirms that the U.S. is an unreliable contract party.