The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned an order from a district judge appointed by Biden, marking a significant win for the Trump administration.
What Started It?
On his first day in office, President Trump initiated a moratorium on foreign aid, which drew criticism from recipients abroad and was seen as a way to boost domestic profits.
He argued that the “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy often conflicted with American interests and values.” His administration implemented a 90-day halt on foreign aid, allowing time to assess the efficiency of existing programs in relation to U.S. foreign policy.
“The grantees have failed to show that they are likely to succeed in the merit.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has discontinued new funding obligations, resulting in thousands of completed grant awards, while the U.S. International Development Agency has shut down.
The Foreign Support Fund’s recipients quickly appealed, aiming to secure around $4 billion designated by Congress for AIDS programs, which was supposed to be allocated by the State Department and USAID.
District Judge Amir Ali, appointed by Biden, had initially helped maintain funding in February.
Ali issued a universal injunction which the Supreme Court later reviewed and, on June 27, stated that it likely exceeded the legal powers granted to federal courts pertaining to foreign aid fund obligations that were active as of January 19, 2025.
Current Developments
On Wednesday, a panel of three judges from the Appeals Court ruled against the previous order in a 2-1 decision. This echoed a similar refusal made by the Supreme Court in March.
Most of the judges on the panel were appointed by George H.W. Bush and Trump. They concluded that the district court had misused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction, as the trustees failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success in the case.
Moreover, the panel noted that the grantees did not possess a legitimate cause of action to assert an independent constitutional claim.
“We will continue to protect our core presidential authorities from judicial overreach.”
In dissent, Judge Florence Pan, also appointed by Biden, criticized her colleagues for what she perceived as a biased restructuring of the case towards favoring the government.
Pan highlighted that the majority’s conclusions about the lacking constitutional cause of action weren’t mentioned in the government’s opening statements and weren’t adequately explored in replies.
Furthermore, she suggested that the majority’s ruling misrepresented the human rights issues raised by the grantees and misapplied legal precedents, enabling administrative officials to dodge judicial review of potentially unconstitutional actions.
In the wake of this ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondy celebrated the outcome, asserting it protected presidential authority from judicial excesses.
Conversely, Lauren Bateman, a lawyer for a public interest group representing some grantees, remarked that the decision posed a serious threat to the rule of law and intended to seek further review in courts for permanent relief against the administration’s termination of foreign aid.
