On March 5, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal judge’s authority to order the Trump administration to pay $2 billion to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors for work that had already been completed prior to the funding freeze.

Four conservative justices dissented, with Justice Samuel Alito arguing that the lower court’s judge did not have “unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out … 2 billion taxpayer dollars.”

On March 11, Federal Judge Amir Ali clarified that, while the government must immediately pay these outstanding invoices, the government also has broad authority to cancel many USAID contracts moving forward for work not yet completed.

Watch the video above as Straight Arrow News contributor Ben Weingarten explains why Justice Alito was “stunned” by the Supreme Court’s ruling and why he believes it could threaten the U.S. Constitution.

The following is an excerpt from the above video:

There are just a few problems with that ruling, beyond the primary question about whether the president has the authority to pause contracts and withhold payments while it reviews them for fraud and abuse; beyond the fact that the judge effectively ordered a preliminary injunction, which is appealable; and beyond the fact the order doesn’t just enjoin the presidential policy with respect to the plaintiffs — freezing the pause on the review of their foreign assistance contracts and/or grants — but that it does so for everyone everywhere in a nationwide injunction while mandating the administration make $2 billion in payments almost immediately.

Even more fundamentally, at core, this can be seen as a contract dispute. Such disputes are dealt with in the Court of Federal Claims, not in district courts.