Can the judiciary block the Trump Administration’s effort to eliminate waste and fraud from the federal budget?

In the interview Nima asks if federal judges will block the Trump administration’s efforts to stop the looting of the federal budget.  Nima made reference to a recent Supreme Court decision ordering the Trump Administration to release $2 billion from USAID to two private contractors–the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network.  

The latter is a collection of journalists and some Eastern European and Central Asian news organizations paid by US taxpayers to help Eastern Europeans and Central Asians “better understand how organized crime and corruption affect their lives.”  Somehow Congress decided that this is in the interest of the US taxpayers.  The former “accelerates the ethical development and equitable delivery of effective HIV prevention options, as part of a comprehensive and integrated pathway to global health equity.” In other words, the private organization is paid by US taxpayers to find ways for homosexuals to have safe sex.  The organization’s funding by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations is insufficient to do the job, so Congress passed the obligation on to US taxpayers.

These two groups appealed to federal district Judge, Amir Ali, a last minute Biden DEI appointee described as a “Canadian-American” who was active in protecting criminals from injustice.

Ali issued a temporary restraining order which, as far as I understand the process, went beyond the scope of a temporary restraining order into a command to release the funds.  As I understand it, a temporary restraining order imposes a temporary halt on an action and requires the judge issuing the order to hold a hearing to determine if there is any basis to the complaint in whose behalf the order was issued.  Only if the hearing concludes that the complaint is valid can a preliminary injunction be issued.  It is the preliminary injunction that has the authority to order the release of the USAID funds, not the temporary injunction. It is the preliminary injunction, which seems yet to be issued, that opens the issue to the appeal process. In the case of Ali’s temporary injunction to release the USAID funds, by the time the appeal works its way through the courts if the government wins the money is already spent and cannot be recovered.  

As far as I can tell from the extremely poor reporting in the media, reporting that emphasizes a Trump Defeat, no preliminary injunction has been issued.  So the question is: how did a temporary injunction reach the Supreme Court and why did two Republican-appointed judges join three Democrats in an incoherent decision?  

I don’t have an answer other than Republicans are not careful about the justices they appoint.  Supreme Court Justice Alito shares my wonder. Alito says he is stunned by the court’s decision. “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 in his dissent said that the government has “shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm” if a lower court’s decision “is not stayed.” The harm to which Alito refers is that if Ali’s temporary injunction is voided in the hearing, or later overturned in the appeal process if it advances to a preliminary injunction, the government will have lost despite winning the case because it would be unable to recover the dispersed money which will have been “quickly spent by the recipients or disbursed to third parties.” 

In other words, as I and Justice Alito understand it, five incompetent Supreme Court justices have ordered a give away of taxpayer money prior to the legal issue being settled.  The Supreme Court decision did not settle the issue whether district judge Ali’s temporary restraining order was valid. The justices ruled that the Trump administration had to release the money before the issue was litigated.

This is the best I can do in explaining what has happened.  American news reporting is so poor that the legacy media reports are useless.  The National Law Journal, which perhaps has an explanation of the decision would not let me subscribe because I am not a practicing attorney.  Apparently, the National Law Journal thinks that only lawyers need to understand legal matters.

If among readers there is an attorney who can provide a better explanation I am pleased to post it.