U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts issued an emergency stay on Wednesday, February 26, 2025, temporarily blocking a district court order that required the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to release over $1 billion in foreign aid by midnight.
The ruling delays the impact of a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia amid ongoing litigation over the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14169.
Legal Battle Over Foreign Aid Termination
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d202f/d202fe968b518b02264fe90d1198d2b373afe2e3" alt=""
The underlying lawsuit was brought by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, along with Global Health Council, against the U.S. State Department.
The litigation challenges Executive Order 14169, which seeks to restrict foreign aid that is not fully aligned with U.S. foreign policy objectives.
The policy led to the termination of approximately 230 contracts and grants, prompting legal action from organizations that depend on these funds.
The plaintiffs argued that the order has a “catastrophic effect” on humanitarian missions, forcing organizations to halt operations, furlough employees, and, in some cases, shut down entirely. They sought emergency relief, arguing that the immediate termination of funding constituted irreparable harm.
In issuing the TRO, Judge Ali agreed, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the executive order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the U.S. Constitution. The court noted that the State Department’s failure to consider the reliance interests of affected businesses and organizations suggested the order was arbitrary and capricious, a key standard under the APA.
Chief Justice Roberts Intervenes
Roberts’ decision to stay the order moots the February 27 funding deadline while setting a Friday deadline for the plaintiffs to respond.
His intervention signals that the issue may soon escalate to the full U.S. Supreme Court for review.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for executive power over foreign aid, government contracting, and the enforcement of the APA.