in World News The SCOTUS a little more than half-nuts
By James A. George
Strong dissent by the four actual conservative justices in a case of blatant “judicial hubris”.
The Supreme Court this week allowed an activist federal judge to assume the powers given by the Constitution only to the president under Article II and permitted him to order the government to pay out the mind-boggling sum of 2 billion, with a “b,” taxpayers’ dollars to NGOs under the auspices of the thoroughly corrupt United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Very briefly, as the procedural background is convoluted, a group of contractors and non-governmental organizations sued to have a court order the government to release $2,000,000,000 that it had frozen through the operation of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE). The court agreed with them and ordered the government to pay out this amount, which only in Washington would be considered a routine amount of money. The government apparently didn’t move fast enough for this federal judge, and he ordered the government to abide by a totally unreasonable deadline, resulting in the government’s appeal to the Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, which, predictably, affirmed the order against the government. With a tight deadline facing it, the government filed a motion to have the Supreme Court enter a stay of the order. I described the background here:
In issuing his order, the district court judge assumed the powers of the presidency in directing that the administration immediately, repeat: immediately, release two billion dollars in foreign aid. … The chief justice’s order was historical in that it was the first time the High Court has acted in any way to show some willingness to rein in what has become a torrent of arbitrary orders from activist judges as part of the new lawfare against President Trump and his program of reshaping federal government functions, including deep spending cuts.
Sadly, in a bit of overly optimistic bombast, hoping for any sign that these activist judges would, at long last, be reined in, I concluded,
Just a tiny little glimmer of hope that we might be seeing a course correction by the High Court in sending a strong message to these Obama-Biden far-left activists in robes? Yes, but a healthy and encouraging first step, nonetheless.
Alas, it was not to be — at least not yet. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the liberal wing of the Court, and, continuing her display of more liberal tendencies than were expected in her appointment, so did Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in denying the application for a stay of the lower court’s obviously overreaching decree and sending it back for further hearings on whether to make the order permanent.
Justice Alito’s dissent, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, contains some of the most direct language ever seen in a Supreme Court opinion about the action of a federal district judge. His words are worth examining:
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. [snip]
With nowhere else to turn and the deadline fast approaching, the Government asked this Court to intervene. At the last moment, THE CHIEF JUSTICE issued an administrative stay. Unfortunately, a majority has now undone that stay. As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility. [snip]
The District Court, however, failed to mention (much less reckon with) [applicable cases] before plowing ahead with its $2 billion order. [snip]
One might expect more care from a federal court before it so blithely discards “sovereign dignity.” [snip]
Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.
While fully admitting, as I must, that my track record on “glimmers of hope” is not looking very promising right now, I do take solace in the wise words of the esteemed legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who noted that the district court has ordered a hearing to be held on the preliminary injunction. It is plain to see that it will be granted, and then an appeal can be taken (again) to the Supreme Court, where it will take only four justices to grant a writ of certiorari, or review. One does not have to be overly optimistic to note that there are four justices just waiting to get their hands on this decision. And with the tone of some parts of this dissenting opinion, I think a 5-4 reversal is highly likely. I just hope I’m not looking for glimmers of hope too hard, as I did last time.
We may finally be coming to a day when the High Court is going to start sending stern messages to some of these Obama-Biden judges that “judicial hubris” of the sort displayed by this judge will not be tolerated. Hope springs eternal.