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.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/supreme-court-denies-trump-request-to-block-2-billion-foreign-aid-payment/
About the Supreme Court decision that results in Trump having to still pay the 2 billion in foreign aid, it seems that the work had already been done. Also, it seems that the 5 justices thought Trump should have appealed the lower courts ruling, rather than bringing it to the SC. But. Apparently, Trump did appeal, but the circuit court ignored it.
"The foreign-aid recipients emphasized that, as a general rule, temporary restraining orders like the one Ali issued on Feb. 13 are not appealable. But the government has not even asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO, they observed. Instead, it has asked the justices to lift Ali’s Feb. 25 order directing the government to comply with the TRO and pay for work that had already been completed – something that is even less amenable to an appeal than a TRO. Moreover, they noted, because the government has not appealed the temporary restraining order, it would still have to comply with it even if the court were to lift the Feb. 25 order."