Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Appeals court keeps alive challenge to Trump’s effort to cancel
billions in foreign aid
By John Fritze, CNN
Updated:
11:16 PM EDT, Thu August 28, 2025
Source: CNN
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 toin 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 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.
<- back to index
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.