High Court Sides with Executive Branch on Impoundment Control Act Challenge, Halting District Court’s Mandate to Obligate Foreign Aid Funds Set to Expire
The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday granted an emergency application for a stay, effectively pausing a lower court order that would have forced the Executive Branch to obligate approximately $4 billion in appropriated foreign aid funding before it expires on September 30.
The ruling, in Department of State, et al. v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, et al., No. 25A269, temporarily halts a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That injunction had directed the Executive to spend $10.5 billion of expiring aid, with the remaining $4 billion at the center of the dispute—funds the President had proposed to rescind in a “special message” to Congress under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
In its brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court stated that the Government—which had been denied stays by both the District Court and the D.C. Circuit—had made a “sufficient showing” that the ICA precludes the plaintiffs’ suit, which was brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to enforce the appropriations. The Court also found that mandamus relief was likely unavailable to the respondents and that the Executive’s asserted harms to the conduct of foreign affairs “appear to outweigh” the potential harm to the plaintiffs.
The Court, however, was careful to frame its decision as preliminary, noting, “This order should not be read as a final determination on the merits. The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief.”
Dissent Highlights Novel and High-Stakes Questions
The emergency stay was met with a sharp dissent from Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Kagan argued that the majority went too far in granting relief, stating the Executive had not met the “appropriately high bar” for an emergency stay, particularly the requirement of a “strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits.”
The dissent framed the core legal issue as a “novel” question “fundamental to the relationship between the President and Congress,” concerning whether the ICA “precludes the beneficiaries’ suit to make the Executive comply with appropriations laws”—a question involving the “allocation of power between the Executive and Congress over the expenditure of public monies.”
Justice Kagan focused heavily on the ICA’s “Disclaimer” provision, 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.” She argued this language plainly preserves the plaintiffs’ ability to sue.
Furthermore, the dissent dismissed the Executive’s claim of irreparable harm, asserting that having to comply with a law that clashes with the President’s policy view “is not a cognizable harm… It is merely a frustration any President must bear.”
The immediate effect of the Supreme Court’s order is to prevent the $4 billion in foreign aid from being obligated before the September 30 expiration deadline, meaning the funds will likely be lost permanently to their intended recipients. The stay will remain in effect pending the resolution of the Government’s appeal in the D.C. Circuit and any subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
READ: War Secretary Hegseth Dismisses ‘Overwrought’ Nazi Comparison To Quantico Military Meeting
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
