SCOTUS Stays Injunction Requiring $4 Billion in Foreign Aid
In a landmark decision underscoring the ongoing tensions between executive authority and congressional oversight, the U.S. Supreme Court on September 26, 2025, granted a stay in Department of State et al. v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition et al., effectively allowing the Trump administration to withhold approximately $4 billion in foreign aid funds. This emergency ruling paused a lower court's injunction that had required the executive branch to obligate the funds before their fiscal year-end expiration on September 30, 2025.
While the Court's per curiam order emphasized its preliminary nature, the stay has had lasting consequences: as of October 1, 2025, the funds have lapsed and are no longer available for distribution, amplifying debates over the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 and the separation of powers. The decision, which appears to have divided along partisan lines with a 6-3 split, highlights potential shifts in how presidents can challenge congressional appropriations, though it leaves room for further litigation.
Background
The controversy began shortly after President Donald Trump's inauguration for his second term on January 20, 2025. On his first day, he issued Executive Order 14169, imposing a 90-day pause on U.S. foreign development assistance to review programmatic efficiencies and alignment with U.S. foreign policy priorities. This freeze affected over $30 billion in funds appropriated by Congress in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, including aid for global health, humanitarian, and development programs.
Organizations such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) and the Journalism Development Network, which rely on these funds for international work, filed lawsuits in February 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They argued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that the freeze constituted an unlawful impoundment, violating Congress's appropriations laws. The executive branch countered that the pause was a lawful review process.
As the dispute progressed, the executive resumed some obligations, narrowing the focus to $4 billion by August 2025. On August 28, 2025, the President transmitted a "special message" to Congress under the ICA, proposing rescission of these funds. Congress did not act, leaving the appropriations intact.
Positions of the Parties
The government (petitioners) seeks to withhold the funds, arguing the ICA provides the exclusive mechanism for challenging impoundments—through the Comptroller General or congressional action—and precludes private APA suits. They also claim mandamus (a court order compelling action) is unavailable and that obligating the funds would harm U.S. foreign policy by forcing negotiations against executive objectives.
The respondents (AVAC and allies) want the funds released, asserting the freeze is an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's spending power. They maintain the APA allows their suit, as the ICA's disclaimer provision explicitly preserves such litigation.
The Supreme Court's Order
The Court's majority granted the stay for the $4 billion portion, citing preliminary showings that the ICA bars the APA suit and that foreign affairs harms outweigh those to respondents. The stay lasts pending the D.C. Circuit's disposition and any potential certiorari petition to the Supreme Court.
In a significant development underscoring tensions between executive discretion and congressional authority, the U.S. Supreme Court on September 26, 2025, issued a per curiam order granting a stay in Department of State et al. v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition et al. This emergency ruling halts a lower court's preliminary injunction that had compelled the executive branch to obligate approximately $4 billion in foreign aid funds before their expiration at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2025. While the Court's decision is framed as a preliminary assessment rather than a final merits determination, it highlights evolving debates over the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 and its implications for private enforcement of appropriations laws under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Historical and Statutory Context of Impoundments
The ICA, enacted in response to President Richard Nixon's widespread impoundments in the early 1970s, was designed to reassert congressional control over federal spending. During Nixon's tenure, the executive withheld billions in appropriated funds to align with policy priorities, prompting over 60 lawsuits from states, organizations, and individuals. Courts frequently ruled against the president, affirming his duty to execute appropriations laws faithfully (e.g., Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975)). Congress responded with the ICA (2 U.S.C. §681 et seq.), which categorizes impoundments into deferrals (temporary delays) and rescissions (permanent cancellations). For rescissions, the president must submit a "special message" to Congress, triggering a 45-day fast-track review period. If Congress does not approve, the funds must be obligated (§683(b)).
A key provision is the ICA's "Disclaimer" (§681(3)), which states: "Nothing contained in this Act... shall be construed as affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment." This language, rooted in the Nixon-era lawsuits, suggests Congress intended to preserve private rights to challenge withholdings. However, recent interpretations, including in related 2025 litigation, argue the ICA's structure—empowering the Comptroller General (a legislative officer) to sue (§687)—impliedly precludes private APA suits, viewing them as bypassing interbranch processes.
In the broader landscape, the ICA has been invoked sparingly since 1974, but President Trump's second-term actions revived it. His administration's fiscal policies, including proposed rescissions, echo Nixon's, though adapted to modern foreign aid contexts amid global humanitarian concerns raised by UN experts (e.g., over 350,000 deaths potentially linked to aid cuts).
Case History and Lower Court Rulings
The litigation originated from President Trump's Executive Order 14169, issued January 20, 2025, which imposed a 90-day freeze on foreign development assistance for review. This affected funds from the 2024 appropriations act (Pub. L. No. 118-47), totaling over $30 billion for programs in global health (including AIDS initiatives), humanitarian aid, and development. Groups like AVAC, which advocates for HIV/AIDS vaccine research and receives U.S. funding for international partnerships, and the Journalism Development Network, filed suit on February 10, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
In the district court, plaintiffs alleged the freeze violated the APA (5 U.S.C. §706) by arbitrarily withholding mandatory appropriations. Early rulings in February and March 2025 granted temporary relief for portions of the funds, ordering obligations of about $2 billion in an initial phase, citing irreparable harm to ongoing programs. The government appealed, but the D.C. Circuit largely upheld the orders, emphasizing the APA's role in reviewing agency actions.
By summer 2025, the dispute narrowed as the executive resumed some spending. On August 28, 2025, the President sent a special message proposing rescission of the remaining $4 billion, arguing misalignment with U.S. interests. Congress did not act within the 45-day window. On September 3, 2025, the district court issued a broader preliminary injunction, directing obligation of $10.5 billion total (including the $4 billion) before September 30, finding the withholding unlawful under appropriations laws and rejecting ICA preclusion arguments.
The government sought stays in the district court and D.C. Circuit, both denied, leading to the Supreme Court application on September 8, 2025. This timeline reflects a pattern of escalating emergency litigation, similar to early 2025 disputes over smaller aid tranches.
| Timeline of Key Events | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Inauguration and Freeze | January 20, 2025 | Trump issues EO 14169, freezing foreign aid for 90-day review. |
| Lawsuits Filed | February 10, 2025 | AVAC and allies sue under APA. |
| Early Rulings | February-March 2025 | Partial obligations ordered; Supreme Court denies broad stay (24A831). |
| Narrowing Dispute | April-August 2025 | Some spending resumes; focus on $4 billion. |
| Rescission Proposal | August 28, 2025 | Special message to Congress; no action taken. |
| Injunction Issued | September 3, 2025 | District Court orders obligation before fiscal year-end. |
| Appeals Denied | September 3-8, 2025 | District and D.C. Circuit deny stays. |
| Administrative Stay | September 9, 2025 | Chief Justice Roberts issues temporary stay. |
| Supreme Court Stay | September 26, 2025 | Full Court grants stay for $4 billion. |
| Funds Expiration | September 30, 2025 | Unobligated funds lapse. |
| Post-Expiry | October 1, 2025 | Government shutdown begins amid budget impasse. |
Breakdown of the Supreme Court's Order
The Court's majority opinion, unsigned and per curiam, grants the stay based on three preliminary findings:
Likelihood of Success on Merits: The government sufficiently argued that the ICA precludes private APA suits, as the Act's framework (special messages and Comptroller General enforcement) implies exclusivity, potentially "supplanting interbranch negotiations." This aligns with recent lower court views (e.g., D.C. Circuit in related August 2025 ruling) that APA review is limited where statutes provide alternative remedies.
Mandamus Unavailability: Respondents lack grounds for mandamus relief, a writ compelling official action, reinforcing the ICA's procedural primacy.
Balance of Equities and Harms: Harms to executive foreign affairs (e.g., forced negotiations undermining policy) outweigh those to respondents, who face potential aid disruptions but not immediate existential threats.
The order stresses its provisional nature, consistent with standards for interim relief under Nken v. Holder (556 U.S. 418 (2009)), and applies only to the $4 billion subject to the special message.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, critiques the ruling's haste on the "emergency docket." She argues the ICA's disclaimer explicitly preserves private suits, citing its text and Nixon-era history where litigation curbed executive overreach. Kagan dismisses irreparable harm claims as mere policy frustrations, not equitable factors, and warns the stay effectively nullifies congressional appropriations, conflicting with separation of powers.
Ramifications of the Order
The immediate effect is that the $4 billion will likely expire unspent on September 30, 2025, as the stay prevents obligation. This could exacerbate global humanitarian crises, with UN reports linking U.S. aid cuts to increased deaths and instability in recipient countries. Domestically, it bolsters executive flexibility in foreign policy but risks eroding congressional authority, potentially encouraging future impoundments. Broader implications include heightened scrutiny of the ICA in an era of polarized budgets, possible legislative reforms, and impacts on U.S. credibility abroad. If upheld on merits, it may limit private APA challenges, shifting enforcement to the Comptroller General and Congress, though critics argue this weakens accountability.
Immediate Next Steps
The stay remains in place pending the D.C. Circuit's full disposition of the government's appeal, expected in late 2025 or early 2026. If the circuit affirms the injunction, the government may petition for certiorari; denial would automatically terminate the stay, while granting it extends until final judgment. Respondents could seek expedited review or file cross-appeals. Meanwhile, related litigation (e.g., early 2025 aid disputes) may influence outcomes, and Congress could intervene with new appropriations or ICA amendments.
This order, while narrow, underscores enduring questions about power allocation in U.S. governance, meriting close monitoring as the case progresses.
Read More
