Stop it.

This order only asks that work in progress and services performed be paid. This is typical in the business world.

Also, this is easily circumvented. If the people administering the fund are fired, the ruling becomes moot.

Military tribunal is an even higher court than the SC. Maybe the military has a way to step in and do the right thing here.

She's a Jesuit child trafficker

Looks like she has been threatened or something. Thats not contempt, thats fear.

Also, thanks for listing all these controlled opposition accounts amplifying each other ready to drive a dagger straight into the hearts of those MAGA will very little faith.

And for those who don't follow the nuanced nature of everything thats happening, and are excitable just by reading the headlines, here is a full explanation by Grok. And no, the ruling does not "force" WH to fund foreign nations. Infact it paves a way for this to be appealable in the district court and make its way back to SCOTUS again.

id the supreme court yesterday rule that the 2 billion USAID Trump had suspended be spent right away or was it a bit more nuanced?

The Supreme Court’s ruling on March 5, 2025 (yesterday, relative to today’s date of March 6, 2025), regarding the $2 billion in USAID funds that the Trump administration had suspended, was indeed more nuanced than a simple mandate to spend the money immediately. Here’s the breakdown:
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to block a lower court order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali. This lower court order had required the administration to pay out nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds to USAID and State Department contractors for work completed before February 13, 2025. However, the Supreme Court did not explicitly mandate that the funds be spent "right away." Instead, it noted that the original deadline set by Judge Ali (February 26, 2025) had already passed. The Court sent the case back to the district court with instructions 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."
This means the ruling upheld the obligation to pay the funds but left the specifics—such as the exact timeline and process for disbursement—to be sorted out by the lower court. It was not a blanket order to release all $2 billion immediately but rather a rejection of the administration’s attempt to freeze the funds entirely, while emphasizing practical implementation. The nuance lies in the Court’s deference to the district court to determine a feasible schedule, acknowledging logistical challenges raised by the government, rather than enforcing an instant payout.
In dissent, Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh argued that a single district judge shouldn’t have the power to compel such a large expenditure, highlighting the contentious nature of the decision. However, the majority’s unsigned order focused on maintaining the legal process rather than dictating immediate action.
So, in short: the Supreme Court ruled that the $2 billion suspension couldn’t stand as the administration wanted, but it didn’t demand instant spending—it handed the reins back to the lower court for a more tailored resolution.

What would nbe the next appeal steps for this?

To determine the next appeal steps following the Supreme Court’s March 5, 2025, ruling on the $2 billion USAID funds case, let’s break down the current situation and the legal process ahead.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to block a lower court order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, which mandated payment of nearly $2 billion to USAID and State Department contractors for work completed before February 13, 2025. However, the Supreme Court did not fully resolve the case—it noted that Judge Ali’s original February 26 deadline had passed and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to clarify the government’s obligations and establish a feasible compliance timeline. This means the Supreme Court’s ruling was not a final judgment on the merits but a procedural step, leaving the substantive issues (like the executive’s authority to freeze congressionally authorized funds) open for further litigation.
Next Steps in the Appeal Process:
District Court Clarification and Proceedings:
The case returns to Judge Ali in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He must now issue a clarified order specifying what the government must do to comply with his original temporary restraining order (TRO), including a practical timeline for disbursing the funds. This could happen quickly, potentially within days or weeks, depending on the court’s schedule and the complexity of the clarification process.

Judge Ali had already scheduled a hearing for March 6, 2025 (today, as of your question), to consider a preliminary injunction requested by the aid organizations. If granted, this injunction would extend the TRO’s effect, requiring the administration to continue funding beyond the initial work completed pre-February 13, while the case is fully litigated. The outcome of this hearing will shape the next phase.

Government’s Response and Potential Appeal to the D.C. Circuit:
Once Judge Ali issues his clarified order or a preliminary injunction, the Trump administration could appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court’s order doesn’t preclude this—its rejection of the emergency stay was specific to the TRO’s expired deadline, not the broader merits.

The D.C. Circuit previously declined to intervene on February 26, citing a lack of jurisdiction over TROs (which are typically non-appealable due to their temporary nature). However, a clarified order or preliminary injunction would be appealable, as these are more substantive rulings. The administration could argue that the district court overstepped its authority or infringed on executive power, a point echoed in Justice Alito’s dissent (joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh), which criticized the $2 billion mandate as judicial overreach.

Return to the Supreme Court:
If the D.C. Circuit rules (either upholding or overturning Judge Ali’s clarified order or injunction), the losing party—likely the Trump administration if it loses again—could petition the Supreme Court for certiorari (review). The Supreme Court isn’t obligated to take the case, but given the 5-4 split and the dissent’s strong language, it’s plausible they’d grant review to settle the constitutional question of executive versus congressional authority over spending.

This process could take months: the D.C. Circuit might rule within 3-6 months, and a Supreme Court petition, briefing, and decision could extend into late 2025 or early 2026, assuming expedited handling due to the case’s urgency.

Alternative: Compliance or Settlement:
The administration might choose to comply with Judge Ali’s clarified order to avoid further litigation, especially if the timeline is softened. Alternatively, a settlement with the contractors could resolve the dispute, though this seems unlikely given the administration’s “America First” stance and its push to dismantle USAID funding (e.g., terminating over 90% of USAID contracts).

Okay just cap the aid at 50 cents per country

S(c)ROTUS wants to see an audit done first to make sure the money has been paid out, as per legally binding government contracts that have already been signed and funded for work already performed. It is illegal in this country to not pay for work already performed.

IF Musk and DOGE find out that the money's been paid out, or the work wasn't performed like originally stated by these NGOs, then per S(c)ROTUS ruling, the US Govt won't have to pay it out. Also, if DOGE finds fraud in those govt contract accounts, they wouldn't have to pay that money out.

This was S(c)ROTUS's way of telling the Fed Govt/Trump Admin to get those audits done that they've been promising since the election cycle.

This movement CANNOT afford to be seen as bending or breaking already existing laws. S(c)ROTUS's ruling was the only ruling they could've made and still be seen as being impartial as per the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code. Which is why they made comments about auditing the NGO contracts.

I am not good with researching people's backgrounds, but i bet a lot of skeletons would be found in her closet.

I knew she was a terrible pick the entire time. I believe she's Jesuit.

Barrett's bad track record

I guess yall only like the rule of law and the constitution when it works expressly in your favor. Trump's team is trying things, and they will not be able to do absolutely everything they want by executive order. Such is a feature of the separation of powers that the founders envisioned.