“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Trump Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett again cast deciding votes in a 6-3 shadow docket ruling that stopped foreign aid funding approved by Congress, this time for $4 billion. Because of the impending end of the fiscal year on September 30, the result will be to permanently cancel the appropriation. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson strongly dissented in the September 2025 decision in Department of State v AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
What happened in this case?
As part of its continuing effort to eliminate foreign aid funding approved by Congress, the Trump administration sought to rescind $4 billion in foreign aid to combat AIDS and other important purposes. A federal district court entered a preliminary injunction ruling that the proposed rescission was improper and requiring that the funds be spent as Congress had directed. The district court and court of appeals denied Administration efforts to stay the injunction, so Trump sought “relief” on the Supreme Court’s shadow docket.
How did the three Trump justices and the rest of the majoity decide and why is it harmful?
In a 6-3 shadow docket order made possible by the three Trump justices, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court injunction. In a brief unsigned order, the majority maintained that although the order “should not be read as a final determination on the merits,” the record so far raises “asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs” that “appear to outweigh the potential harms faced” by aid recipients.
Justice Elena Kagan strongly dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Kagan explained that the majority was improperly approving what was “essentially, a Presidential usurpation of Congress’s power of the purse.” As she explained, the Court’s order will prevent the needed funds “from reaching their intended recipients – not just now but (because of their impending expiration)” at the end of the fiscal year “for all time.” Trump’s claim that the district court order requires the Administration to “advocate against its own” foreign policy objectives, she wrote, “is just the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions” and cannot justify the relief he has sought. The Executive “has not come close,” she continued, to meeting the “stringent” standard for granting emergency relief here.
This 6-3 order is only the latest in a long series of troubling edicts approving Trump assertions of power with serious harmful consequences. The order also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.