In a breathtaking act of judicial self-aggrandizement, a single district court judge seized control of $2 billion in taxpayer funds—money that the Trump administration had lawfully put on hold. Worse, a narrow 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court has inexplicably blessed this overreach, elevating the dictates of an unelected judge over the executive branch's constitutional authority—at least for now.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, did not mince words in his dissent:

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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.

Stunned is the right word. This ruling is more than legally indefensible—it is constitutionally dangerous.

As a former public servant who has served both as a chief judicial officer and the chief executive officer of a state executive agency, I see this case from both perspectives. 

At the executive level, I was always mindful that taxpayer money was the people’s money—not my agency’s. My approach was simple: underspend where possible, maintain a high level of service and ensure a surplus.

That is not the norm in government, however. Many agencies burn through every last dollar to justify a larger budget in the next cycle.

But this ruling goes far beyond that irresponsible mindset—it kneecaps the executive branch’s ability to freeze funding and evaluate programs at the start of an administration.

A Flimsy Legal Basis

Here’s what happened: A coalition of aid organizations sued the Trump administration, claiming its temporary pause on USAID foreign assistance payments violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The case landed before Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Biden. Judge Ali issued what he styled as a temporary restraining order (TRO)—barring the administration from enforcing the funding freeze.

But that wasn’t enough. When the administration did not move fast enough for his liking, Judge Ali demanded the immediate release of $2 billion—a sum that may never be recovered.

This was not a true TRO, though. Justice Alito exposed this misnomer:

The order here, which commanded the payment of a vast sum that in all likelihood can never be fully recovered, is in no sense ‘temporary.’ Nor did the order merely ‘restrain’ the Government’s challenged action to ‘preserve the status quo.’

The APA explicitly excludes this lawsuit from injunctive relief. The APA does not allow courts to override executive decision-making with immediate monetary demands, yet Judge Ali ignored this explicit statutory limitation.

This was an egregious overreach that no court following constitutional principles should have allowed.

Judges are not policymakers. They are not elected—or, in this case, appointed—to dictate executive decision-making. Yet that is precisely what happened here. The judge ordered an agency that answers to the president to spend funds in direct defiance of a presidential directive.

If this ruling stands, what happens next?

• If the Navy postpones building a new submarine despite a prior appropriation, can a shipbuilder now sue for injunctive relief to force construction?
• If the Air Force scraps an aeronautics project, can a contractor demand that the court force the project forward?
• If an executive agency temporarily freezes grant funding to assess its necessity, can recipients now go to the courts and demand immediate payout, bypassing executive discretion entirely? As extreme as this example may sound, that is actually what happened here.

If left unchecked, this ruling invites chaos. The executive branch makes daily business decisions about whether and when to expend funds. Now, a judge has inserted himself into that process—not just temporarily but by compelling immediate, irreversible spending.

And this isn’t even a dispute between the legislative and executive branches. It’s a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) demanding cash—and a judge agrees.

This is rule by judicial fiat.

A Dangerous Precedent

The most egregious part of this case is the flagrant disregard for sovereign immunity—a foundational principle of federal law. Private parties cannot sue the federal government for monetary relief unless Congress explicitly waives sovereign immunity.

As Justice Alito pointed out:

Sovereign immunity bars ‘a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the…treasury.’ But that is exactly what the District Court ordered here.

The APA contains only a narrow waiver of sovereign immunity—allowing for judicial review in cases seeking “relief other than money damages.” That phrase means what it says.

Yet here, the judge’s order blatantly violated this restriction—compelling an immediate payout that cannot be undone even if this decision is later overturned.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent: Any single district judge can now force the federal government to spend taxpayer money at will—unchecked unless the appellate courts step in to restore order.

While this precedent may not be binding, rest assured that like-minded judges are watching—and taking notes. If the appellate courts fail to act, this pattern will repeat, with activist judges sidelining executive authority until they are finally brought to heel.

Not the Last Word

Some will say, “Impeach the judge.” That will not happen—removal requires a two-thirds Senate vote, and the votes aren’t there.

But this cannot stand. Congress has a role to play, assuming that the House and Senate leadership can rally support for action. With majorities prohibitively small, however, I err on the side of pessimism.

At its core, Judge Ali’s order is a textbook case of outcome-based jurisprudence—he seemingly determined his preferred result first and then worked backward to justify it. It is the antithesis of originalism.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to vacate the lower court’s order does not mean the administration has lost on the merits—it means the fight must continue in the lower courts.

Justice Alito made it clear: the Court should have issued a stay of Judge Ali’s order while this case was fully reviewed. Instead, the Trump administration is now forced to comply with an order that tramples on sovereign immunity, disregards fundamental jurisdictional limits, and emboldens activist judges to wield unchecked power.

Simply put, the judiciary was never meant to govern—and is ill-equipped to do so. It is past time for the Supreme Court to rein in this overreach and restore the constitutional limits on judicial power.

Justice Alito’s warning could not have been more unambiguous:

Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.

And when this case returns to the Supreme Court, conservative justices must be ready to correct this grave mistake.

For now, judicial activism wins the day.

And once again, the American taxpayer is left footing the bill.

Charlton Allen is an attorney, former chief executive officer, and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and the host of the Modern Federalist podcast. X: @CharltonAllenNC

Image: Joe Ravi, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons, unaltered.