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

Summary

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

Podcast Information

• Title: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts
• Host: Dahlia Lithwick
• Author: Slate Podcasts
• Episode: Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means
• Release Date: March 5, 2025
• Description: A show about the law and the nine Supreme Court justices who interpret it for the rest of America.

---

Introduction

In this special edition of Amicus, hosted by Dahlia Lithwick, the podcast delves into the Supreme Court’s recent decision marking President Donald Trump's first significant defeat at the nation’s highest judicial body. Dahlia is joined by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern to unpack the implications of the court's ruling against the Trump administration's attempts to halt $2 billion in foreign aid payments.

---

Supreme Court’s Decision: A Detailed Breakdown

Background of the Case

At the heart of the episode is the Supreme Court's brief order rejecting an emergency application from the Trump administration. The administration sought to nullify a lower court's mandate requiring the State Department to disburse $2 billion owed to contractors for completed foreign aid projects.

Lower Court Ruling

The case originated with Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, who ruled on February 13th in favor of the plaintiffs—a coalition of international nonprofits, businesses, and other organizations involved in public health, hunger relief, and foreign assistance. Judge Ali ordered the Trump administration to resume funding, highlighting the critical nature of the appropriated funds for global survival efforts.

Supreme Court’s Stance

On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court, in a tightly split 5-4 decision, upheld Judge Ali’s order. The narrow margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberal majority, underscores the case's contentious nature. This alignment of conservative and liberal justices played a pivotal role in the outcome.

---

Notable Moments and Quotations

Trump’s Public Remarks and the Court’s Response

A particularly striking moment captured in the episode is President Trump’s interaction with Chief Justice Roberts during a joint session of Congress:

• [02:00] Mark Joseph Stern: "Thank you again. Thank you. Don't forget."

This brief exchange highlights the awkwardness and irony of Trump publicly thanking the Chief Justice immediately before the Court's decision goes against his administration.

Chief Justice’s Subtle Defiance

Dahlia comments on the unspoken tension between Trump and the Chief Justice:

• [03:40] Dahlia Lithwick: "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."

This reflects the underlying defiance within the Court, emphasizing the separation of powers and the judiciary's role in checking executive actions.

Justice Alito’s Dissent

Mark Joseph Stern draws parallels between challenging judicial dissent and the administration’s stance:

• [01:33] Mark Joseph Stern: "Especially Sam Alito today, who's never whined more like a baby than in this dissent."

Alito's formidable dissent in the case embodies the intense debate within the Court, showcasing the judicial resistance to the administration's maneuvers.

---

Implications of the Ruling

Administration’s Defiance and Judicial Integrity

The podcast highlights the Trump administration's blatant disregard for Judge Ali's order, characterizing it as one of the most audacious acts of defiance in recent history. The administration’s strategy to evade compliance by seeking Supreme Court intervention ultimately backfired, leading to this significant judicial setback.

Impact on Foreign Aid and International Relations

For the organizations reliant on the $2 billion in foreign aid, the Court's decision reinstates crucial funding necessary for ongoing global assistance programs. This ruling not only upholds congressional appropriations but also reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that executive agencies adhere to the law.

Supreme Court’s Role in Upholding the Law

The episode underscores the importance of the Supreme Court in maintaining the balance of power. By siding with the lower court's decision, the Court reaffirms its commitment to interpreting the law impartially, regardless of political pressures.

---

Concluding Insights

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern provide a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision, emphasizing its significance in the broader context of executive-legislative-judicial interactions. The episode serves as a critical reflection on judicial independence, the rule of law, and the ongoing challenges within the American legal and political landscape.

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court’s narrow 5-4 ruling marks a pivotal moment in limiting the Trump administration's attempts to override judicial orders.
• The alignment of conservative and liberal justices was instrumental in upholding the lower court's mandate.
• The decision reinforces the judiciary's essential role in checking executive actions and ensuring adherence to Congressional appropriations.

---

Access More Content

For an in-depth discussion, Slate Plus members can access the full conversation between Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern. Subscribers also enjoy ad-free listening and exclusive legal analysis across all Slate podcasts. Visit slate.com/amicusplus to subscribe and gain full access.

This concludes the summary of the Amicus episode titled “Sneak Preview: What Trump’s First Big Loss At SCOTUS Means.”

Transcript

[Dahlia Lithwick]

Hi, I'm Dalia 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.

[Mark Joseph Stern]

Hi, Dahlia.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

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.

[Mark Joseph Stern]

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

[Dahlia Lithwick]

That 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.

[Mark Joseph Stern]

Thank you again. Thank you. Don't forget.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

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.

[Mark Joseph Stern]

Yeah, I absolutely think so. I. 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.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

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.

[Mark Joseph Stern]

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, 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.

[Dahlia Lithwick]

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.