DON’T SOME SCOTUS MEMBERS BELIEVE WE HAVE A REPUBLIC?
HOW INACTION CAN SHOW A PURPOSE – THAT SCOTUS THINKS IT CONTROLS
One of the recent cases SCOTUS ducked supports my assertion that the Court has become a tyrannical oligarchy, in this case which it refused to hear, interfering in the power of the President, the executive branch of the federal government. Some members of the Court indicate by failing to take action that they think they are all powerful and in control of the country. Those members are Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Chief Justice is not surprising because one never knows which way he will sway on a case, however, Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a surprise.
In Department of State, et al. v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, et al, issued March 5, 2025, some nonprofits asked a District Court, the lowest court in the federal system, to order that $2 billion of funds be distributed which had been stopped by the Trump administration in its effort to find waste, fraud, and abuse. The lower court held the funds had to be distributed. The Trump administration came to SCOTUS and filed an “application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay.” The chief justice granted the stay and referred the case to the whole Court which by a 5-4 decision vacated the chief justice’s stay.
The Court explained its reasoning this way:
“Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.“
In other words, SCOTUS didn’t want to be involved. It avoided an important issue again.
The explanation of the case is understood best by referring to Justice Alito’s dissent joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. He wrote:
“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.“
(Bold added by me)
He continued:
“In capsule form, this is what happened. Respondents are a group of American businesses and nonprofits that receive foreign-assistance funds from the State Department and the U. S. Agency for International Development. They brought suit and claimed that the current administration’s temporary pause of foreign-assistance payments is unlawful. On February 13, 2025, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the Government to halt its funding pause. It based that decision on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed in showing that the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). After issuing the TRO, the District Judge grew frustrated with the pace at which funds were being disbursed, and on February 25, he issued a second order requiring the Government to pay out approximately $2 billion. The judge brushed aside the Government’s argument that sovereign immunity barred this enforcement order, and he took two steps that, unless corrected, would prevent any higher court from reviewing and possibly stopping the payments. First, he labeled the order as a non-appealable TRO, and second, he demanded that the money be paid within 36 hours.”
The Court must have been oblivious to the fact a majority of Americans, by means of the presidential election, wanted a change of government at the federal level and are in favor of what the President, the executive branch of the Republic, is accomplishing by stopping payments to various entities while examining whether there is any fraud, waste or abuse in those agencies in the distribution of funding. Significant outlandish items have been found and stopped. The Court, by its inaction in this case did not support the manner in which a strong executive can, by its actions, alter what un-elected persons in federal agencies are carrying out without oversight.
Justice Alito indicated the ridiculous outcome as a result of the case by the SCOTUS non-ruling:
“… As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste—not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility.“ (Bold added by me)
Apparently SCOTUS judges Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson have little concern for the good stewardship of our, not their, money. This is a perfect example of how some courts work in an isolated niche that is outside reality. SCOTUS should have gotten involved chastising the Disrtrict Court for thinking it was in charge of the total justice system at the lowest federal level. The question is – how is this justice?
Justice Alito continues with a discussion of the machinations of the federal system with the rules and procedures that oftentimes even the lawyers familiar with federal practice are stupified. You are invited to read that portion of Justice Alito’s dissent to see if you are as confused as am I.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf
Justice Alito ends the dissent with:
“Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. I would chart a different path than the Court does today….”
Continuing with the theme that SCOTUS is the ruler of our country, the Court shows that the tyranny continues.
Don
Donald C Brockett, author of “The Tyrannical Rule Of The United States Supreme Court; How The Court Has Violated The Constitution”. Also see my articles at dcbrockett.substack.com.
A new book will soon be available. Please send me an email if you would like to be advised when it will be available for purchase.
Email me at donsbooks@proton.me
Facebook: CAST-Citizens Against Supreme Court Tyranny
If you liked this post from The CAST Constitution/SCOTUS Newsletter, why not share it?