[image: https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1896885208806199296/t7GjEiSq?format=jpg&name=360×360]
The Supreme Court in a *5-4 ruling* <s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25551544/24a831-order-2.pdf> denied the Trump Administration’s request to vacate Judge Amir Ali’s TRO forcing the administration to pay $2 billion in foreign contracts.
But the fight isn’t over yet.
Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali last Tuesday blasted DOJ lawyers over USAID disbursement and ordered the Trump Administration to pay the foreign contracts by 11:59 pm last Wednesday evening.
The Trump Administration last Wednesday evening *filed* <www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/breaking-supreme-court-stops-biden-judges-midnight-deadline/> an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to intervene after Judge Ali ordered the Admin to pay $2 billion in foreign contracts by midnight last Wednesday.
The Supreme Court initially stopped the Biden’s judge’s midnight deadline, however, on Wednesday, the high court denied the Trump Administration’s request to vacate judge Ali’s order.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Alito said he was stunned by the judge’s order forcing the Trump Administration to pay $2 billion in foreign contracts.
“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,” Alito *wrote * <s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25551544/24a831-order-2.pdf>in a scathing dissent.
Alito blasted Judge Ali for treating a TRO like a preliminary injunction – only TRO’s are generally not appealable.
“To start, it is clear that the District Court’s enforcement order should be construed as an appealable preliminary injunction, not a mere TRO. A TRO, as its name suggests, is “temporary,” and its proper role is to “restrain” challenged conduct for a short time while the court considers whether more lasting relief is warranted,” Alito wrote.
Alito said since the TRO was acting like a mandatory injunction, the Appeals Court “had jurisdiction to consider the Government’s appeal.”
Justice Alito said the Supreme Court can also review *and *vacate the district court’s judgement.
“For these reasons, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the Government’s appeal, and we have jurisdiction to review and summarily vacate that court’s erroneous judgment,” Justice Alito said.
In other words, Alito and the three other conservative justices who dissented, were ready to review the judge’s order.
Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Scalia said the Judge Amir Ali labeled his order to enforce a TRO purposely to take advantage of the fact that TROs generally cannot be appealed.
Ed Whelan continued: “On remand, Judge Ali will need to comply with directive to “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.”
“DOJ will likely seek a stay of his order,” he added.
The fight over the $2 billion in funding for foreign contracts is not over yet.
Judge Ali entered a minute order following the Supreme Court’s denial of the Trump Administration’s application to vacate his order.
A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for Thursday, March 6.
Constitutional legal scholar Jonathan Turley weighed in after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“The key here is that this was a controversial move to review a TRO, which is generally not reviewable. What is clear is that there are four justices who were still prepared to do so and would obviously be likely to grant review in the next round,” Jonathan Turley wrote.
“That next round would come after the hearing on the preliminary injunction, which is scheduled for March 6th,” Turley wrote. “It can then be appealed to these awaiting justices. Only four are needed to grant review, so you do the math.”
Read Jonathan Turley’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision here:
The Supreme Court in a *5-4 ruling* <s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25551544/24a831-order-2.pdf> denied the Trump Administration’s request to vacate Judge Amir Ali’s TRO forcing the administration to pay $2 billion in foreign contracts.
But the fight isn’t over yet.
Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali last Tuesday blasted DOJ lawyers over USAID disbursement and ordered the Trump Administration to pay the foreign contracts by 11:59 pm last Wednesday evening.
The Trump Administration last Wednesday evening *filed* <www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/breaking-supreme-court-stops-biden-judges-midnight-deadline/> an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to intervene after Judge Ali ordered the Admin to pay $2 billion in foreign contracts by midnight last Wednesday.
The Supreme Court initially stopped the Biden’s judge’s midnight deadline, however, on Wednesday, the high court denied the Trump Administration’s request to vacate judge Ali’s order.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Alito said he was stunned by the judge’s order forcing the Trump Administration to pay $2 billion in foreign contracts.
“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,” Alito *wrote * <s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25551544/24a831-order-2.pdf>in a scathing dissent.
Alito blasted Judge Ali for treating a TRO like a preliminary injunction – only TRO’s are generally not appealable.
“To start, it is clear that the District Court’s enforcement order should be construed as an appealable preliminary injunction, not a mere TRO. A TRO, as its name suggests, is “temporary,” and its proper role is to “restrain” challenged conduct for a short time while the court considers whether more lasting relief is warranted,” Alito wrote.
Alito said since the TRO was acting like a mandatory injunction, the Appeals Court “had jurisdiction to consider the Government’s appeal.”
Justice Alito said the Supreme Court can also review *and *vacate the district court’s judgement.
“For these reasons, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to consider the Government’s appeal, and we have jurisdiction to review and summarily vacate that court’s erroneous judgment,” Justice Alito said.
In other words, Alito and the three other conservative justices who dissented, were ready to review the judge’s order.
Ed Whelan, a former clerk to Justice Scalia said the Judge Amir Ali labeled his order to enforce a TRO purposely to take advantage of the fact that TROs generally cannot be appealed.
Ed Whelan continued: “On remand, Judge Ali will need to comply with directive to “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.”
“DOJ will likely seek a stay of his order,” he added.
The fight over the $2 billion in funding for foreign contracts is not over yet.
Judge Ali entered a minute order following the Supreme Court’s denial of the Trump Administration’s application to vacate his order.
A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for Thursday, March 6.
Constitutional legal scholar Jonathan Turley weighed in after the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“The key here is that this was a controversial move to review a TRO, which is generally not reviewable. What is clear is that there are four justices who were still prepared to do so and would obviously be likely to grant review in the next round,” Jonathan Turley wrote.
“That next round would come after the hearing on the preliminary injunction, which is scheduled for March 6th,” Turley wrote. “It can then be appealed to these awaiting justices. Only four are needed to grant review, so you do the math.”
Read Jonathan Turley’s analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision here:
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/03/biden-judges-fishy-order-that-led-supreme-courts/