The media so far has not understood this ruling properly, but I admit it looks bad.
This is a one-page unsigned order by the Supreme Court. It entertains no legal analysis and therefore it has no true precedential effect. It merely says the DOJ did not argue that the monies were not owed to the NGOs for work already performed, and therefore the lower court's order to pay the monies was something the lower court could order at his discretion.
I do feel like the DOJ bungled this petition. They will learn from this and I think we'll win the second bite at the apple when a similar case comes up next.
Now, sadly, this order will encourage other rogue district court judges to make the same kinds of findings, but I do predict something will get to the Supreme Court soon which will compel a full legal analysis of the executive's authority. This case did not do that, and I do fault the DOJ for its handling of this case.
But I am gobsmacked by Roberts and Barrett. Something is up with those two.
Your title is misleading it is not to continue funding USAID. It is about 2 billion that is owed for work they have done. That will win in any Court.
Now Trump can pay back a dollar a month? Maybe a hundred? All while calling for an audit to show the work that was done to make sure it was done to the satisfaction to which they were paid. Just like you are treated on a home project hiring people to do work. So if the work was done and completed they should be paid. If it wasn't it will be a legal reason not to pay them.
The ruling is to pay for services rendered. Not to continue finding them.
Hopefully the receiving entities are found involved in fraud and no longer have to pay
WOW... Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with a TRUTH NUKE in their dissenting opinion.
"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." https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1897290322037621095
So well said!
And
To a effing foreign entity at that!!! They should have 0 justification to force payment to especially a foreign entity.
DOJ should have argued that they need time to evaluate fraud, waste and abuse, which has been found to run rampantly through USAID NGOs. They should've come up with a toehold on that argument which would have allowed for more time. You don't have to pay for fraud regardless of a binding contract.
Fraud vitiates every solemn act, meaning that any agreement or legal act that involves fraud is considered void and unenforceable. This principle applies to contracts, judgments, and other legal documents, as fraud undermines their validity. Long game.
^^^
Whew! Thanks for this clarification.
they didn't do any work, it was all a scam
In one instance we paid mullions to build and to maintain schools. They had no teachers and the buildings could not be used safely after only 2 years, the roof on the class rooms were coming down.
Indeed.
This is not the end of the world. We have many cards in hand. We could call for an investigation into the quality of the work provided and then punish them if they are found to cook the books.