Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means | Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law,...

On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Trump administration's effort to withhold $2 billion promised for foreign aid work. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Court’s decision to reject the Trump administration's request to halt a lower court's order, by a five to four vote, compelling the State Department to resume payments. While Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court's liberal justices, Justice Samuel Alito offered a “stunned” dissent, reacting to the Court’s surprising rebuke to the Trump administration with few facts but plenty of fury.

Note: Captions are auto-generated by YouTube.

Follow Slate on Social:

[karlheinzvonkroemann]

Where in the Constitution does say the SCOUS controls foreign aid? In fact where does it mention foreign aid at all?? We badly need to reboot this entire system.

[papajay]

I told Trump NOT to put ACB in the federal Supreme Court!!!

[thomasbradley]

No loss, SCOTUS will hear afterwards since this is Article II issue and lower court has ball now.

[msbirdafter]

That money is not in the account. That’s why he’s not willing to release the funds. Ask him to show the receipts of the accounts.

[ruthsaunders]

It means we'll never set up those kinds of funds again.

[givelast]

2 billion dollars to non Americans citizens.plus 58 billion dollars freeze no lost .

[msbirdafter]

Why else would he hold on to the funds so tightly?

[jamapx]

Alito supported his dissent with sufficient facts.

[sajimiller]

Prophet Kim Clements said 2 will resign from SCOTUS, in shame. I always thought it would be ACB and Roberts. I feel they are both compromised,

[Sedonalive]

Doesn’t mean nothing cause it’s based on money that was already owed for services rendered. And they may go in and ask what services exactly were rendered exactly???? Ha ha lol

[manzion]

Sure looks like it’S late to be pushing Resistance to T. Enjoy chatting about optics of USDC dance and the justices, but you greatly fail to address reality of impoundment, including law thereof. Both USAID and Ukraine appropriations are subject to not only delay for executive caution but also reasonable impoundment when conflicting on subsequent foreign affairs developments. Executive authority on the latter is supreme to Article 1 appropriations.