Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means

Summary

---

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick: "Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means"

Date: March 5, 2025
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern

---

Episode Overview

This special edition of Amicus provides immediate analysis of the Supreme Court's first significant rejection of a Trump administration emergency application. The heart of the episode explores the legal, political, and institutional fallout from a 5-4 Supreme Court order requiring the Trump administration to resume $2 billion in foreign aid payments—a pivotal challenge to Trump's efforts to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the awkward optics surrounding the ruling, its legal underpinnings, the justices’ alignments, and wider implications for rule of law and separation of powers.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Supreme Court’s Order Against the Trump Administration

• On Wednesday morning, SCOTUS issued a brief but significant order rejecting Trump’s request to freeze a lower court directive that forced the government to release $2 billion in foreign aid funds already owed to contractors ([00:05–00:40]).
• The decision split 5-4: Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal bloc, sharply rebuffing the administration’s position ([00:05], [02:32]).

2. Context and the Awkward Optics

• The episode highlights the timing: the order was released the morning after Trump’s joint session of Congress address, and after his public expression of gratitude to Chief Justice Roberts ([02:02–02:24]).

• Dahlia describes Trump's handshake and “I won’t forget” comment to Roberts as "horrifying," especially given Roberts’ decisive vote against Trump's wishes in the ruling ([02:04], [02:24]).

  “I sort of love the poetic irony of Donald Trump saying to the chief, I won’t forget it. And the chief being like, it’s forgotten. Move on.”
  —Dahlia Lithwick ([03:40])

3. Analysis of the Underlying Cases

• Two consolidated cases—AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State and Global Health Council v. Trump—involved international nonprofits and contractors whose payments for completed foreign assistance work were halted by the administration ([03:40]).

• The initial ruling by Judge Amir Ali (a Biden appointee) directed the administration to restore payments, but the government resisted, citing dubious contractual loopholes ([04:21], [05:05]).

  “The government refused. It claimed...magical language that allowed them to cancel them willy nilly and even refused to pay for services already rendered.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([05:05])

4. Judicial Intransigence and Escalation

• Mark recounts how the Trump administration tried to outmaneuver repeated judicial orders, risking being held in contempt. Instead, Judge Ali issued a series of stern reminders, culminating in the administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court ([05:05–05:50]).

  “This was one of the most brazen acts of intransigence, if not outright defiance by the government in the face of a court order that we have seen in a very long time.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([06:18]).

5. The Court’s Split and Implications

• Both hosts emphasize just how close the final vote was, with the swing votes of Roberts and Barrett standing out ([05:50–06:36]).
• The ruling is framed as a reaffirmation—albeit a fragile one—of the principle that the executive must follow both congressional budgeting and federal judicial orders.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Baby as Metaphor for Chaos:

  “I’m in a hotel room in Arizona and there’s a baby screaming in the room next door… I think she speaks for us all.”
  —Dahlia Lithwick ([01:17])

• Sam Alito Dissed:

  “Especially Sam Alito today, who’s never whined more like a baby than in this dissent.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([01:33])

• "Sick Burn" from Chief Justice:

  “That is a sick burn as far as I’m concerned. And I think the chief is either laughing quietly to himself… or like shivering in a corner worried that Trump is going to turn on him and use that immunity decision against the man who wrote it.”
  —Mark Joseph Stern ([02:56])

---

Key Timestamps & Segments

• 00:05–01:17 — Dahlia introduces the episode, frames the Supreme Court order, and acknowledges the “screaming baby” metaphor.
• 02:02–02:24 — Audio clip and discussion of Trump’s interaction with Chief Justice Roberts after the Congressional address.
• 02:32–03:40 — Mark provides context on the timing of the order and the Supreme Court’s possible motivations.
• 03:40–05:05 — Dahlia breaks down the underlying legal dispute and Judge Amir Ali’s rulings.
• 05:05–05:50 — Mark details administration’s reluctance to comply and the court’s escalating responses.
• 05:50–06:36 — Discussion of the Supreme Court’s razor-thin split and what it signals for the rule of law.

---

Tone and Takeaways

• The tone is urgent, slightly sardonic, and heavy with concern for the current state of American legal norms.
• Both Lithwick and Stern underscore the precarious nature of legal checks on executive power, even as they find dark humor in the situation ("baby Alito," "sick burn").
• The episode cements this order as an early, dramatic reminder in the new Trump administration’s term that even a conservative Supreme Court can—just barely—still demand the president respect the law.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode provides an accessible yet in-depth breakdown of a momentous Supreme Court order, weaving acute legal analysis with sharp wit and a palpable sense of institutional worry. For listeners seeking insight into the Trump administration’s legal tactics and the high court’s complex role as a check on executive authority, this conversation between Lithwick and Stern is essential—and, at times, ruefully entertaining—listening.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, I'm Dahlia Lithwick, and this is a special edition of Amicus, Slate's podcast about the courts and the law and the U.S. supreme Court. We are bringing you this extra episode with news of the first real clash between Donald Trump's Doge agenda and the highest court in the land. On Wednesday morning, in a brief order, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency application from the Trump administration to junk a lower court order, forcing the State Department to immediately pay out $2 billion owed to contractors for foreign aid work they had already completed. The decision was slightly, alarmingly five to four, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joining the court's liberal wing to side with the two challengers to the sudden freeze of foreign aid spending. Joining me to chew over both the brief order and the hail fellow well met greeting between Donald Trump and, quote, his Chief justice at Tuesday night's joint session of Congress is Slate's very own Mark Joseph Stern. Hi, Mark.

[B]

Hi, Dahlia.

[A]

I'm just gonna note, I'm in a hotel room in Arizona and there's a baby screaming in the room next door. I would ordinarily not flag this, except if you hear that sound, that's actually all of us. I think she speaks for us all.

[B]

Especially Sam Alito today, who's never whined more like a baby than in this dissent.

[A]

Baby is channeling Sam Alito. Before we get to this, I think very consequential first loss for Donald Trump. I think we need to start with the audio of Donald Trump after his remarks, personally thanking the Chief justice on Tuesday evening. Thank you again.

[B]

Thank you again. Won't forget.

[A]

And that's the sound of President Trump patting the Chief justice on his shoulder, thanking him and assuring him he will not forget. So, Mark, we have this awkward moment. It's horrifying. I think Elena Kagan's face, much like the baby in the hotel room next door, speaks for us all. They waited to release this blockbuster order until after Donald Trump gave his speech.

[B]

Yeah, I absolutely think so. I think even though Alito clearly took some time to write this furious dissent, and he loves to drag out the drama by writing long dissents, I think it's pretty clear that this should have been ready by Tuesday. I mean, the court has been preparing it since at least Friday. And I think, you know, for optics purposes, the majority didn't want to put it out right before some of them went to sit in front of Trump at his address before Congress. And so they waited. And the optics are, in some ways even Weirder now because you had Donald Trump basically saying, hey, thanks, Chief, for all you did to make me president again. I mean, that's certainly how I interpret his comment. And then the chief turns around and signs on to, you know, this extraordinary order that will require the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion that it doesn't want to. That is a sick burn as far as I'm concern. And I think that the chief is either laughing quietly to himself in his chambers or like shivering in a corner worried that Trump is going to turn on him and use that immunity decision to the fullest of his powers against the man who wrote it.

[A]

Yeah, I sort of love the poetic irony of Donald Trump saying to the chief, I won't forget it. And the chief being like, it's forgotten. Move on. So listen, this order is a big deal. Early on Wednesday morning, as you say, we get this very short order in a pair of cases, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. Department of State and Global Health Council v. Trump. The plaintiffs are a group of international nonprofits, businesses and other groups that provide public health services, hunger relief investigations, other foreign assistance all around the globe. And they had challenged this Trump administration freeze of virtually all foreign aid funding that had already been appropriated by Congress, including, and we've talked about this on the show, Mark, money for programs that people literally relied on around the world in order to survive. The case was assigned to Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee. He ruled for the plaintiffs on February 13. He ordered the government to resume the funding. And since mid February, we've been witnessing the Trump administration dodging and weaving around that order to reinstate payments. We've talked about this before on the show, Mark, and sort of outer limits of what Judge Ali could do and his very openly expressed frustration with how the case was playing out.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, just to recap, Judge Ali ordered the government to resume these payments. The government refused. It claimed that it had gone over all of the relevant contracts and discovered magical language that allowed them to cancel them willy nilly and even refused to pay for services already rendered. The plaintiffs came in and asked for Judge Ali to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court. Judge Ali did not go that far, but he issued then, like a series of increasingly frustrating orders saying, hey, I issued my decision. You're sort of supposed to abide by it. It finally reached a boiling point that led the Trump administration to run to the higher courts and say, we don't want to do this. We don't want to pay. This is outrageous. How dare Judge Ali hold our feet to the fire and make us actually spend the money Congress appropriated. And so I think it was clear that this was not going to get resolved in Judge Lee's courtroom. The Supreme Court was going to have to step in one way or another. And of course, whenever you're relying on this Supreme Court to force the Trump administration to follow law, you really got to have your fingers crossed. That is a tricky bet to place. And I think that Judge Ali stood strong, knowing he was in the right, that he had the law and the facts on his side, and that turned out to be the correct bet. It's pretty disturbing that it only paid off by, you know, a single vote, as we'll discuss. But this was one of the most brazen acts of intransigence, if not outright defiance by the government in the face of a court order that we have seen in a very long time.

[A]

Slate plus members can access my conversation with Mark in full right now. You can subscribe to Slate plus directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or visit slate.comamicusplus to get access wherever you listen. We'll be back with your regularly scheduled Amicus episode on Saturday morning. Until then, take good care and hang on in there.