Home » SCOTUS rules that the government must pay the $2 billion …

Comments

SCOTUS rules that the government must pay the $2 billion … — 25 Comments

  1. Anyone that thought the change in administration was a panacea for the nation’s ills was sniffing rainbows. Sounded nice but reality hasn’t really set in yet. The bad boys still run things and will fight back against any attempt to cut into the money-making machines.

    Hope I’m wrong; doubt I am.
    Time will tell; meanwhile, keep your powder dry.

  2. This represents, according to Professor Jacobson, “an attempt to substitute the political and policy judgments of judges for those of the executive branch.”

    –neo

    I agree.

    Ever since Chief Justice Roberts weaseled his way into making the decisive vote for Obamacare, I’ve understood that the Supreme Court’s highest priority is preserving and expanding its own power.

  3. I heartily recommend that you follow Shipwreckedcrew on X and his Substack articles. He’s an ex-prosecutor with 35 years of Federal court experience, has been defending many January 6 defendants. He patiently explains the legal reasoning at each stage of the lower level judges’ lawfare, the Trump DOJ responses, the path for appeals through the courts including to the USSC.

    It’s not always appropriate for the Supremes to jump in and overturn some of these overreaching judges just to get to the desired end result. If they do so in one case they set a precedent and will be deluged with activist junior judges carrying out lawfare. Better from the Chief Justice’s standpoint that narrow issues are resolved narrowly, at the lowest levels of courts and courts of appeal. The Supremes need to take on only those cases where the issues and the facts enable them to rule on broad principles that will set the rules for lower courts in an orderly fashion.

    It’s best not to get bent out of shape with every twist and turn just because a ruling doesn’t result in your desired outcome immediately. The greater prize may be delayed but more durable and ironclad, when the Supremes are able to set a bright line that applies more broadly to the separation of powers, and lets future disputes be more easily resolved in the lower courts or appeals courts below the Supreme Court level. Frustrating, but better in the long run.

  4. Dan D:

    “shipwreckedcrew” is usually pretty good and I’ve linked to him in the past. I agree that SCOTUS must pick and choose. But t some point soon I believe they need to rule on the principle behind all of this.

  5. Why not just refuse? No one believes the district court judge is on the level.

  6. It doesn’t seem likely that much of the $2 billion was described so specifically in an appropriation by Congress, that the Executive has no discretion at all how or whether to pay it out. It may be hard to wait, but I think we get to that principle eventually.

    It’s so early we’re still talking about money spent under the previous Administration which must have had the same power this one has over how and when money was spent.

  7. I remember when Roberts thought 5-4 rulings were a bad thing and that the court should strive for consensus but then that was before the need to control all things Trump took over.

  8. Fine, but does the lower judge say when the funds have to be distributed?
    Roberts has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.

  9. “I heartily recommend that you follow Shipwreckedcrew on X and his Substack articles. He’s an ex-prosecutor with 35 years of Federal court experience, has been defending many January 6 defendants. He patiently explains the legal reasoning at each stage of the lower level judges’ lawfare, the Trump DOJ responses, the path for appeals through the courts including to the USSC.” @ Dan D

    • 100% agree – both recommendation and your explanation of his approach.

    • I’ll add that I tend to read blogs & commentary written by lawyers; however, Ship is a-cut-above when it comes to the analysis you noted.

    • A key difference is many of the others just can’t seem leave out their “commentary” when attempting to provide a legal perspective – see Legal Insurrection, Powerline, Althouse, etc.

    • And that does not mean I do not wish to read their commentary – except for Althouse – it just means I’d like to see them exercise a little discipline, and not equate their “commentary” with a factual explanation; especially when it concerns the intricacies of the federal courts – see Ship’s specialty.

    • Lastly, I also appreciate both the fact that he does not let popular sentiment – especially “for blood” or “right now” – change his approach to attempting to educate those that wish to be educated, and his track record – see Trump indictments/ cases.

  10. I’d better go read Shipley’s X feed. My question is whether these payments are for entities to which USAID made grants, however foolish or unreasonable we may think them, and which entities then performed to USAID’s specifications. If it’s not outright fraud it may have to be paid. I do think the government should be given the time to determine which are outright fraud. No further commitments for the nonsense going forward is what we can count on.

  11. Oooh look the administrative state (courts) protecting the administrative state. Who’d of thunk it?

  12. Just published by Shipwreckedcrew, exactly what I was wondering.

    The district court has the obligation to ensure that it has jurisdiction.

    The issue is now squarely before Judge Ali in the Govt opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.

    He’s going to have to address it — if he gets it wrong he’s going to be reversed.

    https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1897433542805901743

  13. If there is blatant fraud involved, prosecute after payment received and see if the defense lawyer tries to claim something like a judicial pardon ahead of time. Send it all the way back to the Supreme Court just on principle.

  14. @huxley

    That certainly appears to be John Roberts’s highest priority, but even as Chief Justice he himself is not ‘the Supreme Court.’

    Thankfully.

  15. Actually . . .

    Trump does not have to pay a cent right now. The SC ruling notes the deadline has passed and the judge has to issue a new deadline. But, oh, btw, says the SC you have to issue it only after – then giving a long set of conditions that pretty well wipes out the judge’s ability to quickly issue a new deadline, or even issue one at all.

    It’s a Trump victory disguised as a Trump defeat.

  16. Jeff Childers at coffeeandcovid on substack has an in-depth analysis on the case. Bottom line is SOTUS ran rings around Judge Ali and has boxed him into a corner with a stern warning. He says don’t believe all the negative hot takes criticizing justices Roberts and Barrett. This is the best analysis I’ve read about this case yet, although I also thought ShipWreck did a good one too.

  17. We just have to read everything ourselves. It doesn’t look like we can trust “takes”… I mean this just keeps happening, legacy media comes out with something, bloggers tweak it or pile on, and then when we have time to dig in and think about it and consult people with detailed knowledge we realize it wasn’t that way at all.

  18. miguel cervantes:

    I was taking my cue from Legal Insurrection, which is usually very good at legal stuff. Also, Alito – whom I quoted – is no legal slouch either. I didn’t rely on the MSM to interpret this.

    However, I believe that those who are disappointed in the ruling wanted SCOTUS to rule on the underlying question about the power of district judges and to limit it. The fact that SCOTUS didn’t do that here doesn’t mean it won’t do it in the future.

  19. @neo: You might have been responding to me instead of miguel, but I wasn’t talking about just this one topic nor about any one blogger.

    I’ve been noticing more games of telephone in the last few years, where bloggers, not necessarily you specifically, react to each other’s take or the MSM’s take, with commenters piling on, and the originating event receding into the distance.

  20. Mick Finn on March 6, 2025 at 2:05 pm:
    “Jeff Childers at coffeeandcovid on substack has an in-depth analysis on the case.”

    Mike, thank you for that link to that explanation. It almost seems as if our conservative politicos took some classes in gile and strategy and maybe some acting courses while they were in the Biden dongeon.

    Niketas Choniates on March 6, 2025 at 2:47 pm:
    We just have to read everything ourselves. It doesn’t look like we can trust “takes”…… we have [to take or make the] time to dig in and think about it and consult people with detailed knowledge we realize it wasn’t that way at all.”
    I concur the degree of “interconnectedness” among both Progressives/Leftists and among conservatives can lead to flawed info getting out, including mistakes in “fact checking”.

    It is hard work to do that type of deep dive on every topic or issue that comes across the transome, as you well know better than most. Part of the answer appears to be to pick our battles, as it were. And no matter what sources of info we access (MSM, blogs, substack, et al., someone is acting as an editor restricting our exposure to perfect and complete knowledge. It just comes with the territory.
    So I am glad there is a diverse set of critical thinking talents and experience commenting and responding here, so those of us with less time or talent (or a tendency to gullibility) can still benefit. +++++

  21. Thanks very much for all those comments that offer (and refer/link to) further and more sophisticated explications of what appears to be, on the face of it, a most exasperating ruling.

    OTOH, “a Trump win disguised as a Trump loss” is exactly what I’d like to see happen, so I should be careful here regarding any feelings of hope or even euphoria.

    Should also ask that if in fact this “deeper meaning” of the ruling is true, then why Alito wouldn’t have perceived it…

    AND should also add that such a “Trump win” is actually a WIN for the entire country and the Rule of Law (and Good Government)….

    Thanks again…and let’s hope.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>