this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
25 points (100.0% liked)

News

35703 readers
2886 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected the Trump administration’s bid to delay paying $2 billion to USAID contractors, upholding U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s authority.

The administration had frozen these funds, impacting essential projects in Ukraine, Nigeria, and various African nations, causing significant disruptions and layoffs.

The narrow decision does not compel immediate payment but allows the lower court proceedings to advance.

Justice Alito led the 4 conservative justices who dissented and questioned Judge Ali’s judicial power.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?" Alito wrote in a dissent joined by the three other conservative justices.

Wait until Alito sees Elon Musk...

"A federal court has many tools to address a party's supposed nonfeasance," Alito said. "Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them."

About that...

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The fact that 4 supreme court justices signed onto "Does a judge have the power to order the president to spend money the way congress told him to, as explicitly described in the constitution?" is terrifying. Wholly unsurprising, but terrifying.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, if these 4 are purposefully ignoring Congress' role here, this gives me little hope that the Trump Court of the United States will properly do their duty when other cases come to their door.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago

They have to lay the groundwork to condition people into thinking that the president can just ignore the courts in the near future.