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.
“hypocrisy with statements that are either materially incorrect or, at the very least misleading” (about Alito). A very polite understatement. He infuriates me!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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."
What would need to be changed in the future to avoid these court proceedings to get the government to pay what they're supposed to pay when such payment is due (besides obviously never allowing anyone like Trump become president)? So much harm has already been caused with these delays.
There are many instances where there is no "law" (i.e., statute) that says a debt must be paid. But if a judge orders you (or anyone) to pay over money by a date certain just try saying "hell, no - not just because you ordered me too." I often wonder, did Samuel Alito actually go to law school and pass a state bar exam somewhere, sometime?
As always, I'm amazed at the knowledge and understanding of the Court's case law that you carry around in your head - ready to use at the airport gate! Thank you for unpacking this and confirming the little glimmers of hope I got when reading about this decision today. And many thanks for providing an example of Alito's blatant hypocrisy. Stunning.
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.
Hey, thank you from writing from an airport gate! This is super helpful!
“hypocrisy with statements that are either materially incorrect or, at the very least misleading” (about Alito). A very polite understatement. He infuriates me!
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.
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.”
Let's not mix words. Alito is a partisan hack.
Read: "Alito 'Stunned' By Court Exercising Judicial Power He Championed & Expanded Just Months Ago"
Byline: from the the-only-thing-stunning-here-is-the-hypocrisy dept
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/06/alito-stunned-by-court-exercising-judicial-power-he-championed-expanded-just-months-ago/
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.
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.
Thank you! Still seems scary that four Justices would have gone the other way. v/r
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!
Thank you for this very helpful explanation!
What would need to be changed in the future to avoid these court proceedings to get the government to pay what they're supposed to pay when such payment is due (besides obviously never allowing anyone like Trump become president)? So much harm has already been caused with these delays.
Thank you for the analysis! It’s very saddening to see SCOTUS justices writing like complete partisan hacks.
Totally impressed by your ability to analyze then synthesize these complex cases while you’re on the road. Thanks as always.
There are many instances where there is no "law" (i.e., statute) that says a debt must be paid. But if a judge orders you (or anyone) to pay over money by a date certain just try saying "hell, no - not just because you ordered me too." I often wonder, did Samuel Alito actually go to law school and pass a state bar exam somewhere, sometime?
As always, I'm amazed at the knowledge and understanding of the Court's case law that you carry around in your head - ready to use at the airport gate! Thank you for unpacking this and confirming the little glimmers of hope I got when reading about this decision today. And many thanks for providing an example of Alito's blatant hypocrisy. Stunning.
Per usual with the black-frocked FedSoc KKKlergy, Alito's dissent is not a dissent.
It is a talking points memo.
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.
Just an aside, but I love all the invocation of “taxpayers” when about half the government’s intake is borrowed.
Makes it worse. Should be "taxpayers, their children, and other future debt obligors."