In early September, a federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden ordered President Donald Trump and his administration to pay out roughly $4 billion in foreign aid funds that they had held back.
However, the defeat was short-lived, as the U.S. Supreme Court this week temporarily halted the early September order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, allowing the Trump administration to continue to hold back the funds, the Daily Caller reported.
The high court added that the ruling was its "preliminary review" of the case and that it wasn't determined on "merits."
Regardless, the ruling marks another crucial Supreme Court victory for President Trump, who has relied on the high court to combat the judical activism seemingly on display in the federal judiciary.
The Supreme Court explained in its ruling why it decided to allow the funds to be held back by the Trump administration.
"[O]n the record before the Court, the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents,” the Supreme Court’s order read.
"This order should not be read as a final determination on the merits," it added. "The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief."
Not surprisingly, the three liberal justices on the high court dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent, "I appreciate that the majority refrains from offering a definitive view of this dispute and the questions raised in it."
She added, "But the effect of its ruling is to allow the Executive to cease obligating $4 billion in funds that Congress appropriated for foreign aid, and that will now never reach its intended recipients."
The Trump administration, specifically Solicitor General John Sauer, explained why it needed the high court's help in the matter in its emergency application.
"To have any hope of complying in time, the Executive Branch would have to immediately commence diplomatic discussions with foreign nations about the use of those funds—discussions the President considers counterproductive to foreign policy—and notify Congress about planned obligations that the President is strongly opposing," Sauer wrote.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration wrote that the federal judge's ruling was "a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers."
It'll be interesting to see where this case ends up and which side gets the win.
