On Wednesday, attorney Glenn Kirschner stated that the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that it “won’t yield” to President Donald Trump following a ruling that supported a federal judge’s authority to require Trump’s administration to remit nearly $2 billion to contractors of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comments on Saturday morning. Why It Matters This ruling marks another instance since Trump assumed office in January where the Supreme Court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, has sided against the president and other conservatives on various matters. Concerns have been raised by Trump critics about the Court potentially supporting his actions; however, the Supreme Court has demonstrated, to some degree, its willingness to oppose Trump in legal disputes. What To Know The narrowly divided Court voted 5-4 on Wednesday, dismissing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) emergency request to block U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s ruling that mandated a strict timeline for the administration to release frozen funds. Funding was initially paused when Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office, halting financial support for all foreign aid programs and USAID projects that did not “fully align” with the goals of the Trump administration. This action was further supported by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s appeal to terminate payments for foreign aid initiatives. These actions were challenged in court, and Judge Ali issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the government’s freeze on foreign aid payments. On February 25, the administration was summoned back to court after failing to comply with the TRO, as it continued to block funds for aid organizations globally. The administration could not furnish an explanation for this action. Consequently, Judge Ali ruled that the administration owed $2 billion to aid organizations for services previously rendered, following 12 days of the government’s noncompliance with court orders. The government appealed to Chief Justice Roberts, who initially placed a pause on the payments. However, he, along with four other justices—Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—determined that the administration was obligated to pay the specified amount to foreign aid entities. In a YouTube video on Wednesday, Kirschner, a former U.S. attorney and known critic of Trump, commented on the judgement. “While this is just one ruling by the Supreme Court, it suggests that at least five justices are unwilling to acquiesce to Donald Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. Today, the Supreme Court acted as a legitimate co-equal branch of government and provided a necessary check on the overreach of the executive branch,” Kirschner stated. The dissenting justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, described this decision as an “extreme response.” The foreign aid organizations asserted that the government created the crisis it now faces. They argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review district court “minute orders” and pointed out that the administration’s appeal pertained only to the $2 billion, not the initial TRO, indicating that they still had to comply with the unfreezing of their funds as mandated by the TRO. They stated: “The district court made it clear that the February 25 order did not expand the government’s obligations under the TRO or its prior enforcement mandates. Consequently, a ruling vacating the February 25 minute order would not change the government’s responsibility to comply with the TRO.” Representatives for the Global Health Council and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition noted that this case reached the Supreme Court due to the government’s failure to adhere to lower court ruling. They emphasized that without these payments, their crucial lifesaving work for millions and the very existence of their foreign aid counterparts are at risk. This ruling represents the second instance this year where the Court has curtailed the administration’s attempts to significantly broaden the executive power’s reach. Last month, the Court denied Trump’s request to immediately dismiss the head of the Office of Special Counsel, stating that it would not interfere with a temporary order from a lower court that had kept the individual in position. What People Are Saying Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in dissent: “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction possess the unchecked authority to compel the Government of the United States to disburse (and possibly lose forever) $2 billion in taxpayer funds? The answer to that question should be a resounding ‘No,’ yet a majority of this Court seems to think otherwise. I am astonished.” Former Senate legislative assistant Jeremy Bates in an amicus brief for the aid organizations: “President Trump implores the Court to uphold what he violated. His breaches have cost the United States unity, reputation, wealth, and lives. Rarely has equity encountered a party with such unclean hands. The Court should deny the stay.” What Happens Next? The Trump administration is required to pay $2 billion to foreign aid organizations. Failure to do so may result in contempt charges against the administration. The majority pointed out that a court-mandated deadline to allocate the funds by February 26 has already elapsed and instructed Judge Ali to “clarify what obligations the government must meet to comply with the temporary restraining order.” Judge Ali’s temporary restraining order on the government is valid until March 10.