Quote:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's request to block a lower court's order for the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign aid money, delivering a near-term reprieve to international aid groups and contractors seeking payment for previously completed projects.
We cannot know that for sure, yet. Very limited proceedings in the lower court. Point remains, Court of Claims case for damages, if for work previously completed. But the lower court just swept that under the rug, the fact they don't have jurisdiction.doubledog said:
As I understand it, this SCOTUS ruling was for contracts already "fulfilled" , not for pending contracts.
Aggie Jurist said:
ACB is your typical law professor - and I wouldn't hire any of my law professors to handle a traffic ticket.
The next two (possibly 3) appointments may be the most consequential in US history. Please - no more Harvard or Yale grads and NO law professors.
If you're wondering why the Epstein files haven't been released ....?Stat Monitor Repairman said:
How big of a poison pill was John Roberts?
and;
How compromised is John Roberts?
And that is what the bond is for. Yet the lower court has not insisted the plaintiffs post a sufficient one.doubledog said:Quote:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's request to block a lower court's order for the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign aid money, delivering a near-term reprieve to international aid groups and contractors seeking payment for previously completed projects.
As I understand it, this SCOTUS ruling was for projects already "completed" , not for pending projects.
Trump can always ask for a refund.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-nearly-2-billion-frozen-usaid-payments
Quote:
The key here is that this was a controversial move to review a TRO, which is generally not reviewable. What is clear is that there are four justices who were still prepared to do so and would obviously be likely to grant review in the next round.
That next round would come after the hearing on the preliminary injunction, which is scheduled for March 6th.
It can then be appealed to these awaiting justices. Only four are needed to grant review, so you do the math.
That’s not true. SCOTUS told Judge to be specific about what payments need to be made.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 5, 2025
I suspect - as was the case in Rhode Island - Judge Ali is going to find that very difficult to do beyond the 10 or so plaintiffs in his case. https://t.co/GPt4Xzn37V
aggiehawg said:And that is what the bond is for. Yet the lower court has not insisted the plaintiffs post a sufficient one.doubledog said:Quote:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's request to block a lower court's order for the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign aid money, delivering a near-term reprieve to international aid groups and contractors seeking payment for previously completed projects.
As I understand it, this SCOTUS ruling was for projects already "completed" , not for pending projects.
Trump can always ask for a refund.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-nearly-2-billion-frozen-usaid-payments
a. the plaintiffs can lose on appeal. Then where is the money?jacketman03 said:aggiehawg said:And that is what the bond is for. Yet the lower court has not insisted the plaintiffs post a sufficient one.doubledog said:
As I understand it, this SCOTUS ruling was for projects already "completed" , not for pending projects.
Trump can always ask for a refund.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-nearly-2-billion-frozen-usaid-payments
Why would the court make the party that's seeking to enforce an order pay a bond?
Ellis Wyatt said:a. the plaintiffs can lose on appeal. Then where is the money?jacketman03 said:aggiehawg said:And that is what the bond is for. Yet the lower court has not insisted the plaintiffs post a sufficient one.doubledog said:
As I understand it, this SCOTUS ruling was for projects already "completed" , not for pending projects.
Trump can always ask for a refund.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-nearly-2-billion-frozen-usaid-payments
Why would the court make the party that's seeking to enforce an order pay a bond?
b. This court has no legal basis for making this order. It doesn't even have jurisdiction.
The media is going to spin today's SCOTUS Order as a "win" for the resistance.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 5, 2025
It is not.
The fact that they will tells you 1) they are cheerleaders, and 2) they are legally illiterate.
Now that I think of it, the same is true of the right-wing social media influencers who…
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Recall that it took the USSC 68-days to decide that it was unconstitutional for the state of Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
Trumps only been president for 44-days and we've got our first SC ruling.
Wise Latina has beaten chronic exhaustion and the court operating at lighting speed!
They've shaken off the cobwebs and operating at peak efficiency now.
2/ Opinion here: https://t.co/ezXFHICYst
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 5, 2025
Quote:
The Govt will surely appeal any subsequent order that directs it to pay parties who are not before the Court.
So, don't read more into the Order than is there.
Yes, it would have been nice for the Court to simply vacate the TRO. But that would not have solved the problem. As the Order notes, the Preliminary Injunction proceedings are ongoing.
The briefing on that is complete and a hearing was supposed to take place yesterday. I expect Judge Ali will now hold that hearing since his TRO expires on 3/10 -- 5 days.
The jurisdictional issues are raised in the briefing so Judge Ali is going have to confront them as part of any decision he makes.
None of that was before the SCOTUS in a properly briefed form.
Roberts always prefers regular order. He stepped in because the order to pay by 11:59 that night was the problem.
The other issues can all be dealt with in regular order -- let Judge Ali enter his TRO, the Govt appeals the TRO to the Circuit Court, and then the case gets to SCOTUS on the merits.
A couple of truth bombs about today's decision by SCOTUS on the TRO issued by Judge Ali:
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 5, 2025
The DOJ never appealed the original TRO entered by him. Rather than do that, they opted to "maneuver" around thru a hole he left in his order that allowed them to rely on statutes/regs/…
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has just vindicated CJ Roberts.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 5, 2025
The Court has just granted the Motion to Stay the Order of Judge Amy Berman Jackson that Hampton Dellinger remain as head of the Office of Special Counsel while he litigates the legality of his dismissal without…
The Rules require a bond by the party receiving a TRO or Temporary Injunction. If the Court grants the temporary order and the plaintiff ultimately loses, the enjoined party can collect on the bond to recover the losses caused by that temporary order.jacketman03 said:Ellis Wyatt said:a. the plaintiffs can lose on appeal. Then where is the money?jacketman03 said:aggiehawg said:And that is what the bond is for. Yet the lower court has not insisted the plaintiffs post a sufficient one.doubledog said:
As I understand it, this SCOTUS ruling was for projects already "completed" , not for pending projects.
Trump can always ask for a refund.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-nearly-2-billion-frozen-usaid-payments
Why would the court make the party that's seeking to enforce an order pay a bond?
b. This court has no legal basis for making this order. It doesn't even have jurisdiction.
Okay, but the point of a supersedeas bond is to allow the appealing party to delay payment pending the appeal. So why would the party that's not appealing be required to pay one?
Patentmike said:The Rules require a bond by the party receiving a TRO or Temporary Injunction. If the Court grants the temporary order and the plaintiff ultimately loses, the enjoined party can collect on the bond to recover the losses caused by that temporary order.jacketman03 said:Ellis Wyatt said:a. the plaintiffs can lose on appeal. Then where is the money?jacketman03 said:aggiehawg said:And that is what the bond is for. Yet the lower court has not insisted the plaintiffs post a sufficient one.doubledog said:
As I understand it, this SCOTUS ruling was for projects already "completed" , not for pending projects.
Trump can always ask for a refund.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/scotus-rules-nearly-2-billion-frozen-usaid-payments
Why would the court make the party that's seeking to enforce an order pay a bond?
b. This court has no legal basis for making this order. It doesn't even have jurisdiction.
Okay, but the point of a supersedeas bond is to allow the appealing party to delay payment pending the appeal. So why would the party that's not appealing be required to pay one?
Basically, it's insurance to protect the defendant from an inappropriate tro or ti.
Meanwhile--Hampton Dellinger and the all Biden-appointed Merit Systems Protection Board just reinstated nearly 6,000 USDA probationary employees fired by the president. How many will not be on probationary status by the time this is resolved?
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 6, 2025
As I warned when this started--it… pic.twitter.com/7P6ilGGMmP
LINKQuote:
A federal watchdog for government workers is throwing in the towel in his legal fight against President Donald Trump's attempt to fire him.
A day after a federal appeals court panel allowed Trump to proceed with his plan to remove Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, Dellinger issued a statement saying he is dropping his lawsuit challenging his dismissal.
Looks like this little order is heading towards File 13...will25u said:Meanwhile--Hampton Dellinger and the all Biden-appointed Merit Systems Protection Board just reinstated nearly 6,000 USDA probationary employees fired by the president. How many will not be on probationary status by the time this is resolved?
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 6, 2025
As I warned when this started--it… pic.twitter.com/7P6ilGGMmP
Judge Nichols has *denied* USAID contractors an emergency restraining order blocking the mass termination of their contracts, saying they haven't shown the type of "irreparable" harm that warrants relief.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 6, 2025
It's essentially a contract dispute, he said in court this AM.
Im Gipper said:Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Recall that it took the USSC 68-days to decide that it was unconstitutional for the state of Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
Trumps only been president for 44-days and we've got our first SC ruling.
Wise Latina has beaten chronic exhaustion and the court operating at lighting speed!
They've shaken off the cobwebs and operating at peak efficiency now.
You do know one was a ruling on the merits, don't you?
Quote:
Yes. It's clear that extraordinary measures are contingent on Donald Trump's involvement in the case.
I really don't think many of the Trump cases will end up having precedential value for very long, if at all. They will be viewed as an aberration and distinguishable on that basis alone.Quote:
We seeing a spilt in the justice system that future scholars will have to contend with. British common law to present, then a fork where the Trump cases split off.
And today Hampton Dellinger throws in the towel and says he is going to ask for dismissal of his case seeking to hold onto his position as head of the Office of Special Counsel.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 6, 2025
He was going to lose on the merits in the Appeals Court -- vindicating the Trump Admin view that it… https://t.co/SnnJ0SnSWP
