A federal appeals court on Thursday declined to review a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid, but it also allowed the nonprofits who are fighting that effort to continue their case in a lower court.
At issue is billions of dollars in foreign aid, including for global health programs, that was approved by Congress but that President Donald Trump deemed wasteful and has sought to cancel. Several nonprofits who receive those grants sued in a case that has twice reached the Supreme Court.
The decision was partly a win for Trump, because the appeals court declined to review the nonprofits’ claim that the cuts violated separation of powers principles. But it also means that the groups will be able to continue to make their case.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit sided with Trump in the case earlier this month, blocking the groups from suing and empowering the administration to refuse to spend money approved by Congress. But late Thursday, the panel issued an amended decision that gave the groups the ability to continue their challenge – at least on a limited basis. In turn, the full appellate court, which the nonprofits had asked to rehear their case, declined to review the challenge.
The upshot of the legal machinations for the groups is that the lawsuit now returns to US District Judge Amir Ali, nominated by President Joe Biden, who had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing the freeze. An emergency appeal the administration filed at the Supreme Court this week will likely be moot.
US Circuit Judge Florence Pan, also nominated by Biden, wrote in a dissent to the full appeals court’s ruling that it was a mistake not to review the decision from the three-judge panel because its ruling blocked off one important route the nonprofits tried to use to challenge Trump.
However, she acknowledged that the panel’s revised opinion provided a “pathway for the grantees in this case to pursue relief,” which she said might be “the most efficient way for the grantees to seek access to the $15 billion of appropriated funds.”
Trump signed an order on his first day in office attempting to curtail foreign aid spending, and his administration has for months been fighting court orders that block his effort. Ali in March wrote that the spending of foreign aid is a “joint enterprise between our two political branches” and said the administration was trying to usurp Congress’s role.
But earlier this month, the three-judge panel of the appeals court overruled that decision and sided with the Trump administration, holding that only the legislative branch may sue an administration for making changes to congressionally approved spending – not the nonprofit groups that had challenged the drastic proposed cuts.
The nonprofit grantees appealed to the full DC Circuit. But because of an unusual series of procedural maneuvers, Ali’s injunction had remained in effect while the case was pending at the full court of appeals. That prompted the Department of Justice to rush up to the Supreme Court on Tuesday with an emergency request to put Ali’s order temporarily on hold, claiming it would force them to spend $12 billion in foreign aid before the end of next month.
“Given the vast sums involved and the significance of the case to the separation of powers and U.S. foreign policy, the district court’s holdings, if allowed to stand, would clearly warrant this court’s attention, and those holdings would not survive review,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration’s top appellate attorney, told the Supreme Court.
Now that the full appeals court has ruled, it will likely take the dispute off the Supreme Court’s docket – at least for now.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court once before. In March, a 5-4 majority initially rejected the administration’s request to keep the money frozen. That narrow decision effectively allowed the litigation to continue in lower courts.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
Comments