On Friday, the Trump administration urged a federal judge in Washington, D.C. to partially dissolve a preliminary injunction that mandates the payment of foreign assistance grants and contracts for work completed prior to February 13. The administration’s request follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the government, which could impact the continuation of the Foreign Aid Freeze Injunction.
The Trump administration argues that the Supreme Court’s April 4 ruling in Department of Education et al. v. California et al. significantly alters the legal landscape surrounding this case. In that decision, the Court held that plaintiffs in the case lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, a point the government had raised in opposition to the injunction at hand.
The U.S. government is now seeking a ruling from U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali, who initially imposed the injunction, to issue an indicative ruling that would allow the dissolution of the injunction if jurisdiction is returned to his court. The injunction currently prevents the withholding of payments to foreign assistance recipients and contractors for work completed before February 13, 2025.
The Supreme Court’s decision also impacts related cases concerning funding for teacher development programs in various states. The Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Education could withhold payments under two grant programs after emergency applications by the Trump administration. The government emphasized that the decision reinforced the principle that disputes related to contracts should be resolved in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, not through the injunction in this case.
The administration’s legal team pointed to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of past decisions such as Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson as governing law, arguing that the injunction’s requirement to restore past-due payments for foreign assistance grants is no longer legally sound.
In light of these developments, the government is requesting that Judge Ali dissolve the “past-payments provision” of the injunction, which could potentially lead to the disbursement of over $1.1 billion in foreign assistance funds to non-plaintiff organizations. The administration also raised concerns that continuing this provision would set a troubling precedent for future legal challenges involving non-parties to the case.
The government’s motion highlights that a failure to dissolve the injunction would result in a significant financial burden for the U.S. government, which continues to face litigation from organizations including the American Bar Association and several international aid groups who are parties to the case.
The outcome of this legal dispute, particularly regarding the Foreign Aid Freeze Injunction, will have far-reaching implications for foreign assistance funding and its legal governance. The case is currently being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with further developments expected in the coming weeks.
