A federal appeals court declined on Thursday to stop the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars set aside by Congress for foreign aid.
The decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not to hear the case and potentially flip an earlier ruling by three of its judges was a technical-sounding step in a case with major constitutional implications. It appeared to render moot, for now, an emergency request the administration made to the Supreme Court this week, asking that the justices affirm President Trump’s authority to keep the funds frozen.
The decision handed a temporary victory to the administration, which has argued since the start of Mr. Trump’s second term that it can refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress on causes it deems wasteful or against the national interest. That philosophy has been a key component of Mr. Trump’s moves to seize control of the executive branch and claim broad powers for himself that Congress has traditionally held.
But the appeals court nonetheless left open a narrow window on Thursday for the coalition of aid groups that sued over the frozen funding in February. The court released a revised version of the order its three-judge panel issued earlier this month that no longer fully foreclosed lawsuits by outside groups over the withholding of the funds.
The three-judge panel that issued the order two weeks ago found that the groups could not sue the government over its use of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and that only the Government Accountability Office, which serves as Congress’s independent watchdog, could pursue that claim. The revised order on Thursday maintained that position.
The panel’s opinion, written by Judge Karen L. Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, and joined by Judge Gregory G. Katsas, a Trump appointee, appeared to preclude any challenge brought by foreign aid organizations, which have fought for seven months to make the funds available as originally envisioned by Congress.
But a majority of judges on the court intervened to pause that order from taking effect while voting on whether to rehear the case before a full panel. That prompted the Trump administration to lodge an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Wednesday to secure the three-judge panel’s favorable ruling.
Despite the court decision not to rehear the case, several judges appointed by Democratic presidents appeared to signal that the global health nonprofits still had a viable case.
Judge Brad Garcia, an appointee of President Joseph R. Biden Jr., noted in a separate statement that revisions made in the new order on Thursday left open the possibility that the Trump administration had trampled over Congress’s intentions in its 2024 appropriations law.
In a two-paragraph statement “respecting” the decision not to rehear the case, he wrote that the aid groups could still pursue that line of reasoning, and pursue another win before a district court judge that has prevailed over the case since February.
“Now, however, the panel has revised its opinion in a way that allows that claim to proceed,” he wrote.
Judge Patricia A. Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama, joined with Judge Garcia’s statement accepting the outcome of the vote not to rehear the case.
Judge Florence Y. Pan, a second Biden appointee, issued a five-page dissent, largely agreeing with a lower court judge who had required the Trump administration to make the billions available for contractors and former grantees who could continue applying.
Judge Pan wrote that the case presented “a textbook separation-of-powers claim,” in which the Trump administration had unlawfully “infringed on Congress’s power of the purse” when it refused to spend the money Congress had appropriated.
She added that the decision created a split with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers nine western states, contradicting its conclusion in a related case.
Even the revised opinion, Judge Pan wrote, “is an erroneous constitutional ruling that creates a circuit split on an issue that is likely to recur.”
“It will unduly restrict private parties from vindicating their constitutional rights,” she wrote. But the judge added: “Although the full court’s decision not to rehear that issue is a mistake, there are some silver linings.”
Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.
The post Appeals Court Declines to Block Trump From Freezing Foreign Aid appeared first on New York Times.
