Understanding Justice Alito’s Controversial Stance on Executive Decisions
Here’s an intriguing puzzle: When does a Supreme Court justice believe that the courts have the authority to review decisions made by the executive branch? The answer, at least for Justice Alito, appears to hinge on one significant factor: “whenever a Democrat is president.” This pattern raises critical questions about judicial integrity and consistency across different political administrations.
Analyzing the Supreme Court’s Recent 5-4 Decision on Executive Authority
Recently, much discourse has emerged regarding last week’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling affirming that a judge indeed has the power to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to maintain the status quo, compelling USAID to disburse owed funds to contractors for work already completed. However, beneath this straightforward legal determination lies a troubling inconsistency demonstrated by some members of the Court’s conservative faction, suggesting a deeper issue of partisan bias.
Examining Alito’s Dissent: A Stark Departure from Previous Positions
The most striking aspect of Alito’s dissent is how it fundamentally contradicts positions he took just months prior. This isn’t merely a subtle shift — it reflects a dramatic inversion of his views on the fundamental question of judicial power. Alito appears to evaluate these issues differently, based solely on which political party holds the presidency at the time.
Contextualizing the Legal Implications of USAID’s Funding Freeze
To fully grasp this assertion — and the lack of any alternative explanations — it’s essential to dissect the events that transpired. Elon Musk and his DOGE team intervened at USAID, effectively halting nearly all payments, which created a complex legal dilemma that had largely been theoretical until the current administration. The concept of Congress having “the power of the purse” mandates that the executive branch must allocate funds as directed. The failure to spend appropriated funds, known as “impoundment,” is unequivocally illegal.
The Legal Challenge Faced by Contractors and the Court’s Response
This situation has triggered a wave of lawsuits, with the case in question involving two specific contractors — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council. These organizations highlighted that they had already fulfilled their contractual obligations and were therefore entitled to payment. Musk’s decision to freeze these payments was a clear violation of the law.
Temporary Restraining Order Issued to Address Contractual Obligations
Judge Amir Ali, presiding in the District Court, recognized the gravity of the issue at hand and issued a Temporary Restraining Order. TROs are typically reserved for extraordinary situations, primarily aimed at restoring the status quo to prevent irreparable harm. In this case, the failure of contractors to receive payment from the federal government for work already completed, under contracts ratified by both Congress and the executive branch, poses a significant risk of damage. Consequently, Judge Ali mandated that the government adhere to its contractual and constitutional obligations.
Executive Branch’s Disregard for Judicial Orders Raises Concerns
Despite the issuance of the TRO, the White House chose to ignore the court order and failed to release the owed funds. This led Judge Ali to summon the Department of Justice back to court two weeks later to seek clarification and compliance, issuing an order for the funds to be disbursed by that evening. This prompted the DOJ to file an appeal, which swiftly escalated to the Supreme Court. With urgency, Chief Justice Roberts issued an “administrative stay” on the TRO, effectively pausing its enforcement.
Exploring the Implications of the Administrative Stay
This administrative stay presents an interesting anomaly worthy of examination. The primary purpose of both TROs and administrative stays is to preserve the status quo while the court assesses the situation more thoroughly. However, this raises a critical question: Which status quo is being preserved? Is it the one where the government adheres to the law and compensates contractors for completed work? Or is it the one where Musk’s DOGE team illegally withholds funds, denying payment for legally contracted services? It certainly appears the former is the only status quo that should be maintained.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Alito’s Dissent: A Study in Contradiction
After deliberating for nearly a week, the Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of Judge Ali’s essential position, although they instructed him to devise a new implementation strategy since the initial payment deadline had passed. However, the truly alarming aspect is not the majority ruling but rather Alito’s dissent, which reads as if it were crafted in an alternate reality where numerous prior opinions, many of which Alito supported, are conveniently overlooked.
Identifying Alito’s Selective Memory in Judicial Interpretation
Alito’s dissent opens with what could charitably be termed selective amnesia, both concerning the facts of this case and the recent Supreme Court jurisprudence he upheld:
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, are you?
Examining Alito’s Framing of Judicial Power Over Executive Spending
Let’s take a moment to consider Alito’s framing of this issue as one of judicial power over executive spending. This perspective might seem reasonable, were it not for two glaring contradictions: First, Congress has already mandated this spending under its constitutional authority. Second, Alito himself has previously insisted that courts must enforce such congressional directives against presidential overreach — particularly when Democrats are in office.
Alito’s Partisan Perspectives on Judicial Authority Revealed
While I recognize that some individuals (including Chief Justice John Roberts) may take offense at the suggestion that Alito exhibits extreme partisanship, the framing of his dissent, coupled with recent rulings that favored executive authority during President Biden’s administration, clearly indicates that Alito’s underlying philosophy seems to be: “When Republicans are in power, the president has supreme authority; when Democrats are in power, presidents possess little to no power.”
Comparing Previous Rulings to Highlight Inconsistencies
To illustrate this point, let’s highlight two previous rulings, both authored by Chief Justice Roberts, to which Alito readily affixed his signature. The first case was Biden v. Nebraska, where the Supreme Court ruled that the president lacks the authority to cancel student loan debt without congressional approval. Throughout that case, the Court emphasized that the executive branch possesses no power to reinterpret or disregard an act of Congress, especially concerning financial matters.
Reinforcing Congressional Authority Over Executive Actions
As Roberts articulated in that ruling, with which all dissenting justices concurred:
The dissent is correct that this is a case about one branch of government arrogating to itself power belonging to another. But it is the Executive seizing the power of the Legislature.
Fast forward to the current USAID case, and suddenly Alito expresses “stunned” disbelief that a district court would prevent the executive from usurping Congress’s financial authority. The contradiction is glaringly apparent.
Highlighting Judicial Review and Executive Authority in Recent Cases
In the student loan ruling, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh were adamant that the executive branch must not “seize power” from the legislative body. This ruling also made it clear:
Among Congress’s most important authorities is its control of the purse. U. S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 7;… It would be odd to think that separation of powers concerns evaporate simply because the Government is providing monetary benefits rather than imposing obligations.
Yet, in the present case, these same justices suddenly find it “stunning” that a court would enforce Congress’s financial authority against executive overreach. Did Alito and his colleagues simply forget the Biden case?
Assessing Historical Precedents and Their Applicability
Or consider this excerpt from the same ruling:
… our precedent—old and new—requires that Congress speak clearly before a Department Secretary can unilaterally alter large sections of the American economy.
Does this principle not apply equally in this case? If so, why is Alito astonished that the lower court reached the same conclusion he endorsed less than two years ago?
Recent Rulings on Separation of Powers and Judicial Authority
If that feels too distant in the past, let’s turn our attention to last summer’s ruling in the Loper Bright case, which eliminated Chevron deference. This case also revolved around the separation of powers and the judiciary’s authority to overrule the executive branch.
In this instance, which again emerged just months ago, Alito enthusiastically supported the judiciary’s role in checking executive power. Yet, he now expresses “stunned” incredulity that a district court would uphold congressional appropriations law against executive fund withholding. More notably, Alito’s dissent summary in his opening paragraph strategically omits critical facts — namely, that Congress had appropriated these funds, contracts were signed, and work was completed — instead framing the issue as a judge arbitrarily “compelling” government payment.
Reevaluating Partisanship in Judicial Philosophy
This is indeed stunning! But not in the way Alito perceives it. Rather, it is Alito’s overt partisanship that should be viewed as truly astonishing.
Reaffirming the Role of the Judiciary in Checking Executive Power
In the Loper Bright case, the conservative faction of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the judiciary must always act as a check against the executive when it exceeds its constitutionally granted powers. In that ruling, which Alito endorsed, Chief Justice Roberts clearly articulated the judiciary’s role as the interpreter of the laws:
The Framers also envisioned that the final “interpretation of the laws” would be “the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” Id., No. 78, at 525 (A. Hamilton). Unlike the political branches, the courts would by design exercise “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.” Id., at 523. To ensure the “steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,” the Framers structured the Constitution to allow judges to exercise that judgment independent of influence from the political branches. Id., at 522; see id., at 522–524; Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 462, 484 (2011).
This Court embraced the Framers’ understanding of the judicial function early on. In the foundational decision of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall famously declared that “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). And in the following decades, the Court understood “interpret[ing] the laws, in the last resort,” to be a “solemn duty” of the Judiciary. United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 162 (1841) (Story, J., for the Court). When the meaning of a statute was at issue, the judicial role was to “interpret the act of Congress, in order to ascertain the rights of the parties.”
Judiciary’s Duty to Uphold the Law Against Executive Overreach
Moreover, as the ruling (which I must reiterate, was issued just a few months ago) states, the judiciary frequently must oppose the executive:
The views of the Executive Branch could inform the judgment of the Judiciary, but did not supersede it. Whatever respect an Executive Branch interpretation was due, a judge “certainly would not be bound to adopt the construction given by the head of a department.” Decatur, 14 Pet., at 515; see also Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U. S. 1, 16 (1932). Otherwise, judicial judgment would not be independent at all. As Justice Story articulated, “in cases where [a court’s] own judgment . . . differ[ed] from that of other high functionaries,” the court was “not at liberty to surrender, or to waive it.”
Alito previously endorsed that opinion, and now he’s “stunned” that a judge is independently determining that the executive branch is indeed violating the law.
The Role of the Supreme Court in Upholding Constitutional Principles
There’s a broader perspective worth contemplating. The Supreme Court’s function within our constitutional framework extends beyond adjudicating individual cases — it encompasses establishing clear, consistent principles that lower courts and other governmental actors can rely upon. When these principles fluctuate dramatically based on which political party occupies the White House, it undermines the entire foundation of constitutional law.
Guidance for Lower Court Judges in Times of Partisan Conflict
Consider the implications this has for lower court judges. If you’re a district court judge confronted with an executive branch that defies Congress by refusing to allocate appropriated funds, what course of action should you take? Should you adhere to the precedent established in the student loan case, which mandates a vigorous check on executive overreach? Or should you heed Alito’s (thankfully minority) guidance from the recent ruling, which implies you should be “stunned” by the mere notion of instructing the executive branch on how to allocate funds?
Establishing a Consistent Judicial Approach Regardless of Political Affiliation
It appears the answer is to first check the party affiliation of the current president. This outcome is precisely the kind of scenario the Founders sought to avoid when establishing an independent judiciary.
Identifying the Dangerous Creation of Two Constitutions
However, an even more unsettling aspect of this situation emerges. By making such flagrant partisan distinctions, Alito and his fellow justices are effectively crafting two separate constitutions: one that applies when Democrats hold power (characterized by strict adherence to the separation of powers and rigorous judicial review) and another for Republican administrations (marked by expansive executive authority and judicial deference).
Evaluating the Impact of Partisan Judicial Philosophy
This issue transcends Alito’s inconsistency; it raises fundamental questions about our ability to maintain a coherent theory of constitutional law when Supreme Court justices treat identical legal questions differently based solely on partisan considerations.
Understanding the Consequences of Judicial Partisanship
What we are witnessing is not a principled judicial philosophy but rather the raw dynamics of partisan power. The judicial doctrines these justices profess to uphold — textualism, separation of powers, and judicial independence — appear to be selectively applied based on who occupies the White House. The underlying message is unmistakable: Republican presidents warrant kingly deference, while Democratic presidents necessitate constant judicial scrutiny.
Reflecting on Chief Justice Roberts’ Perspective on Judicial Integrity
This brings us back to Chief Justice Roberts, who continues to assert that it is both unfair and inappropriate to suggest that his colleagues might be motivated by partisan considerations rather than consistent legal principles. Perhaps he is correct that we should refrain from questioning the motives of Supreme Court justices. However, when these justices issue opinions that directly contradict their recent precedents based solely on the party in power, what alternative conclusions are we left to draw?
For more of the latest insights on litigation, regulation, deals, and trends in financial services, sign up for Finance Docket, a collaboration between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
