The Following Content Has Been Provided by:Bob Unruh

The U.S. Supreme Court, which stunningly and deliberately interfered in President Donald Trump’s management of the executive branch, over which he is given authority by the U.S. Constitution, is facing a backlash over its decision.

“We’re now urging Congress to offset that wasted $2 billion from the federal judiciary’s $9.5 billion FY2025 discretionary budget,” announced a spokesman for the Article III Project, Mike Davis.

The dispute is over just a portion of the massive spending fraud and waste that Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency found in its agenda to eliminate fraud, waste and criminal activities in federal spending.

Ordered halted were payments of some $2 billion that had been authorized by Joe Biden, but reversed by President Trump.

The groups that were to get the funds sued, and the Supreme Court, 5-4, said those payments should go forward.

Davis’ organization pointed out that Justice Samuel Alito expressed that he was “stunned” by the decision.

“In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS sided with an activist D.C. judge to sabotage the presidency and spend $2 billion in foreign-aid money over the President’s objection. According to SCOTUS, the waste, fraud, and abuse at USAID must continue,” the organization said.

“The D.C. District Court is out of control. This radical Biden judge and his fellow tyrants-in-robes need to be reined in. If SCOTUS won’t do it, we will. The Article III Project will draft legislation to bring much-needed reforms to the D.C. District Court. That court’s authority needs to be delegated to local D.C. crimes and not national policies.”

A commentary at Federalist went even further.

It suggested that since the ruling was so far out of alignment with the Constitution, Trump might ignore it.

“The Supreme Court’s shocking decision on Wednesday to allow a D.C. district court judge to order the Trump administration to disburse $2 billion in federal grant money is a major blow to the separation of powers undergirding our constitutional system of government,” the commentary said. “But the thing about separation of powers is that they stand or fall together. All three branches of our government — legislative, executive, and judicial — have to respect the Constitution’s clear separation of powers. If one of them doesn’t, there’s no reason that the others should.”

It continued, “Put another way, if the Supreme Court can simply disregard the Executive branch’s constitutional authority and allow it to be usurped by an inferior federal court, which is what happened, then there’s no reason the executive branch under Trump should pay any attention to what the Supreme Court says in this case, because it’s trying to assert an authority it simply doesn’t have.”

The Federalist explained that what had happened was purely routine: “As part of an administration-wide effort to crack down on fraudulent and wasteful federal spending, President Trump ordered a review of all federal grants, and also ordered that payments on all grants should be paused while the review is ongoing.”

But the lawsuit was filed and the Supreme Court divided 5-4, insisting that those cash troves be handed out.

The decision was by three leftists on the Supreme Court plus Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

“The majority didn’t give a reason for this denial, which is too bad, because the ruling should trigger a constitutional crisis,” the report said.

But Alito’s “blistering dissent” was clear: “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.”

It was the district judge, Amir Ali, who claimed “for himself executive authority to disburse federal funds and determine the time and manner in which the funds will be disbursed — powers clearly vested not in the judiciary but in the executive branch, that is, with President Trump.”

That alone, the report said, should be enough for Trump to ignore the ruling.

“But there’s other problems too, like the fact that the lower federal court in this case lacks jurisdiction. Contract disputes with the federal government are only supposed to be heard by the Court of Federal Claims, not a D.C. district judge. Among other things, this means Ali’s order requires President Trump to violate existing federal law.”

And it noted that “the most serious problem,” stems from “this pernicious notion that any district judge, anywhere in the country, can dictate to the executive branch what it must or must not do, under the guise of issuing a temporary restraining order or a universal injunction in a pending case.”

This is the reason that leftists go judge-shopping when they have a case, to find an activist who already agrees with their agenda.

Years ago already, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that violates the Constitution.

“District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief,” wrote Thomas at the time. “These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.”

He said it appears the Supreme Court must address the schemes.

There’s already a recent precedent for the president to ignore a Supreme Court ruling: Joe Biden did it with his massive cash-handout scheme in which he relieved borrowers of the responsibility of paying back student loans, instead demanding that taxpayers shoulder that financial burden.

Remember when the Supreme Court told Biden “No” and he continued on like it never happened?

Why can’t Trump do that?

It’s, as they like to say, “precedent.” pic.twitter.com/mG0nCMsNxC

— Joshua Lisec, Ghostwriter (@JoshuaLisec) March 6, 2025