Divided Supreme Court 'Hands Trump a Loss'

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration push to rebuke a federal judge who gave it a quick deadline to release billions in foreign aid that President Trump froze in January. By a 5-4 vote, the court told US District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his earlier order that required the Republican administration to release nearly $2 billion in aid for work that had already been done. The court's action leaves in place Ali's temporary restraining order that had paused the spending freeze; Ali is holding a hearing Thursday to consider a more lasting pause. What you need to know, per the AP:

• Background: Ali ordered the funding temporarily restored on Feb. 13, but nearly two weeks later he found the government was giving no sign of complying and set a midnight Feb. 26 deadline to release payment for work already completed, reports CNN. The administration appealed, calling Ali's order "incredibly intrusive and profoundly erroneous" and saying it could not release money fast enough to comply with the deadline.

• The timing: The Hill reports Chief Justice John Roberts received the request by default just hours before the midnight deadline and issued a short delay so the court could hear from both sides—culminating in Wednesday's emergency ruling.
• The majority: They noted that the administration had not challenged Ali's initial order, only the deadline. The unsigned order read, "Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, [Ali] should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court's three liberals.
• The dissent: Justice Samuel Alito led four conservative justices in dissent. The New York Times has these lines: "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."
• One take: From the Hill: The ruling "hands a loss to the administration in the first time that Trump's efforts to drastically reshape federal spending, agency by agency, have reached the high court."

(More President Trump stories.)