WASHINGTON, DC — SEPTEMBER 26: U.S. President Donald Trump introduces 7th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden at the White House September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).
Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Monday sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Court’s three liberal justices in refusing the Trump administration’s request to halt a federal judge’s order requiring the government to pay out nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. The Trump-appointed justice’s decision to break from the court’s conservative block came as a surprise to many court watchers and was met with disdain by the president’s supporters.
The ruling — a significant setback for the administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — stems from a case that has moved at breakneck speed over the last two weeks.
The plaintiffs — organizations who had entered into contracts or received USAID grants — last month sued the Trump administration over an executive order that required a blanket freeze of all foreign assistance, arguing that it was an unconstitutional exercise of presidential power.
On Feb. 25, after issuing a temporary halt on the freeze, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali grew frustrated with the administration seemingly flouting his directive and ordered nearly $2 billion be paid out by midnight on Feb. 26. Just hours before the payment deadline, Chief Justice Roberts issued an administrative stay, halting the lower court’s order until the full court could weigh in.
Thanks in large part to Barrett splitting from her conservative colleagues (who signed onto a scathing dissent penned by Justice Samuel Alito), the Trump administration is now on the hook for that $2 billion, which will be paid for work already completed.
Barrett’s previous decisions have frequently appeared in the litigation surrounding the funding freeze, with plaintiffs and judges citing her opinions in support of halting the Trump administration’s across-the-board aid stoppage.
For example, the plaintiffs in this case quoted from Barrett’s concurring opinion in last year’s U.S. v. Texas case to argue that the Trump administration should not have been permitted to petition the Supreme Court for a stay of Ali’s order.
In January, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, a Joe Biden appointee, issued an administrative stay temporarily blocking the funding freeze (in a separate case), citing to the same Barrett concurrence in her order granting an administrative stay on the measure.
“While the court awaits full briefing and argument, it may issue a brief ‘administrative stay,”” AliKhan wrote, quoting Barrett. “An administrative stay ‘buys the court time to deliberate’ when issues are not ‘easy to evaluate in haste.’ An ‘administrative stay does not typically reflect the court’s consideration of the merits,’ but instead ‘reflects a first-blush judgment about the relative consequences’ of the case. Such a stay ‘freeze[s] legal proceedings until the court can rule on a party’s request for expedited relief.’”
A three-judge panel on the First Circuit Court of Appeals last month cited the portion of Barrett’s Texas concurrence in which she discusses the lack of jurisprudence surrounding administrative stays, which she calls a “measure that functions as a flexible, short-term tool” that acts as a “prelude to the main event: a ruling on the motion for a stay pending appeal” to reject an appeal from Trump.
Many conservative commentators and MAGA influencers took to social media to excoriate Barrett for what they seemingly believed to be a betrayal of the president.
Margot Cleveland, a senior legal correspondent for The Federalist who spent more than two decades as a law clerk with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, derided the decision as “outrageous.”
“The majority, or rather Barrett & Roberts since the three leftist justices will vote as block against all things Trump, are still living in a fantasy world thinking they are being prudent,” she posted on X, formerly Twitter. “They aren’t: At this stage the most prudent course of action is to halt the outrageous Coup by Court Order we are seeing unfold.”
Kylie Jane Kremer, an executive director for the pro-Trump group “Women for America First” who also hosted the Jan. 6, rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol,” said she regretted her support for Barrett.
“I advocated hard for Amy Coney Barrett & was even at her official ceremony at the White House during COVID,” Kremer wrote on X. “I admit I was very wrong about her. We aren’t all perfect but should be willing to admit when we make mistakes.”
Culture reporter for The Daily Wire Megan Basham similarly added that “Trump has to be thinking that Amy Coney Barrett was a mistake,” following the decision.
Others, like far-right influencer Mike Cernovich, offered more boorish critiques of Barrett.
“Amy Coney Barrett is a psychopathic Covidian,” he wrote. “She was our DEI hire and now we pay the price.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
