The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday for an emergency order allowing it to withhold more than $4 billion in foreign aid that Congress had previously allocated, seeking to overturn a lower-court injunction that ordered the funds to be spent.
A federal district judge last week found the government had a statutory obligation to disburse the money unless Congress approved the administration's request to cancel it, and an appeals court declined last Friday to freeze that ruling while the case proceeds. The administration asked the high court to step in immediately as it pursues appeals.
In the filing, Solicitor General D John Sauer said the district court's injunction "raises a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers." Sauer wrote that the order "prevents the President from speaking with one voice in foreign affairs or in dealings with Congress" by effectively forcing the executive branch to advocate against its own objectives.
The dispute stems from President Donald Trump's use of a rarely invoked tool known as a pocket rescission under the Impoundment Control Act. On Aug. 28 the White House notified the House of Representatives that the administration would not spend billions in foreign aid that Congress approved earlier this year. The funds at issue include roughly $3 billion appropriated for the U.S. Agency for International Development and additional sums designated for the State Department, international peacekeeping and democracy-promotion programs.
The administration says the rescissions reflect its policy priorities and contends the president has authority under the impoundment statute to seek cancellation of previously appropriated funds. Opponents, including a coalition of nonprofits and businesses that receive federal foreign assistance, sued, arguing the administration cannot unilaterally claw back appropriated funds without congressional approval.
Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court ruled that the government must spend the allocated money unless Congress voted to approve the rescission request. After the appeals court declined to stay that order, the administration said it was taking the matter to the Supreme Court, which could issue a decision at any time.
Legal scholars and advocates have noted that a unilateral pocket rescission of this scale would be unusual; media reports say it would be the first time in nearly half a century a president has tried to reclaim funding in this manner. The administration has already indicated it will move forward to spend another $6.5 billion in foreign aid funds after facing separate lawsuits from aid groups.
The broader dispute touches on long-running tensions between the executive and legislative branches over control of federal spending and on debates over the role and size of U.S. foreign assistance. Since returning to the White House, Trump has cut billions in foreign aid that he has characterized as misaligned with his administration's objectives and has taken steps to reduce the scope of USAID, saying some of its programs were wasteful.
The Supreme Court has ruled previously on related disputes. In March, the justices declined in a 5-4 decision to allow the administration to keep about $2 billion in foreign aid frozen while litigation continued, indicating the high court will consider such matters but that its votes can be closely divided.
Both sides in the current litigation have asked the justices for rulings that would determine whether the president may unilaterally cancel appropriated funds under the Impoundment Control Act or whether Congress must expressly approve such rescissions. The outcome could affect not only the specific programs and recipients named in this dispute but also the balance of budgetary power between the presidency and Congress.
The Supreme Court's response is pending, and the district court's order remains in effect unless the justices issue a stay or other relief.