CNN — 

A pair of rulings have exposed deep divisions on the Supreme Court about just how much power the federal judiciary has to stop President Donald Trump – and could have enormous implications for the flood of litigation challenging Trump’s actions.

Wednesday, a 5-4 majority of the high court let stand a lower court ruling that required the Trump administration to quickly spend nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. In a strongly worded dissent, four conservative justices – and only four – framed that decision as rewarding “an act of judicial hubris.”

Previously, the court rejected Trump’s request to immediately fire the head of a government watchdog agency, Hampton Dellinger, in a decision that temporarily left him in place.

Exactly how far the Supreme Court will go toward backstopping lower courts, which are issuing a broad range of rulings forcing the Trump administration to take specific actions or blocking actions it has taken, will be critical as judges weigh the president’s moves to fire the leaders of independent agencies, freeze billions in spending and rewrite DEI policies, among other things.

“In both of the rulings the court has handed down so far, we’ve seen the justices step quite gingerly – but, in both cases, in ways that have not given the Trump administration what it’s asked for,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

But even though the court’s rulings are preliminary and don’t directly address underlying questions about a president’s power under the Constitution, they can have significant political and real-world impacts. Here’s what to know:

In more ways than one, the Supreme Court’s order Wednesday was exceedingly modest. In an unsigned, single paragraph, the court dispensed with a request from the Trump administration to cancel a deadline that had already passed a week ago.

US District Judge Amir Ali in Washington, DC, had previously ordered Trump to unfreeze $2 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. When the nonprofit groups that rely on that money claimed Trump officials were slow walking the spending, Ali ordered Trump to turn the flow of cash back on by 11:59 pm ET on February 26.

Trump appealed that temporary order to the Supreme Court, which said the administration is still on the hook for the $2 billion.

However, it sent the case back to the judge to determine what’s next, given that Ali’s previous deadline passed last week and he has a hearing scheduled for Thursday.

The district court, the Supreme Court majority said, “should clarify what obligations the government must fulfill” and consider “the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”

That line, notably, assumes that lower courts have some power to order Trump to spend the money. And by denying Trump’s request – rather than dismissing it – the majority may have been signaling that lower courts can impose some sort of a deadline on a president to act.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett – both conservatives – joined with the court’s three liberals in the majority that essentially upheld Ali’s order. Their take stood in sharp contrast with the dissent’s view of the power of lower courts to tell a president to wait.

There were only four votes for Justice Samuel Alito’s proposition that Ali had vastly overstepped his authority by requiring Trump to spend the money by the deadline. Alito described Ali’s order as an indication of “self-aggrandizement.” He was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

“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?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No.’”

Looking forward to other cases, the dissent may provide a roadmap for other judges who want to defer to a president’s power.

Hear what stood out to CNN’s Paula Reid about the Supreme Court’s decision

03:24 – Source: CNN

But, for now, the majority’s reasoning is likely to give lower courts a sense that the Supreme Court will have their back if they decide to temporarily block Trump. That majority included two of three justices often seen as sitting at the court’s ideological center – Roberts and Barrett – and it underscores the power both will have over the president’s second-term agenda.

Late last month, the Supreme Court also blocked Trump’s effort to immediately fire the head of an independent agency that investigates whistleblower claims, Dellinger. There, the court essentially punted on the question – waiting for the lower courts to weigh the legality of Trump’s dismissal.

In that case, two conservative justices – Gorsuch and Alito – questioned the power of the lower court judge to temporarily reinstate Dellinger in the first place.

“The court effectively commanded the president and other executive branch officials to recognize and work with someone whom the president sought to remove from office,” Gorsuch wrote, adding that courts had no such power at the time of the nation’s founding.

But the majority, which again included Roberts and Barrett, declined to embrace that understanding.

“One plausible reading of today’s ruling and the ruling in the Hampton Dellinger case is something of a yellow light to district courts – not to stop what they’re doing in these cases, but to exercise caution, and to go out of their way to be hyper specific and overly careful in each of their rulings going forward,” Vladeck said.

Federal courts have handed down a series of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions that bar Trump from taking certain actions, such as freezing funding or firing independent workers. Temporary restraining orders, generally, are not appealable – although Trump has repeatedly tried – and are intended to freeze action for a few days to a couple of weeks to give a court time to review written arguments and schedule hearings. They don’t settle the merits of the dispute – a process that can take months or years.

Preliminary injunctions are more durable – they require a more thorough review by a court – and can bar Trump from taking some actions indefinitely. They are also regularly appealed, including to the Supreme Court.

Last weekend, the federal judge overseeing Dellinger’s case issued a permanent injunction that said he is entitled to remain in his position. The Justice Department is pressing the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to put that ruling on hold, and it’s likely that the intermediate court’s decision on that request will also end up before the Supreme Court in short order.

In practical terms, it’s unclear how quickly the groups seeking to have their federal funds restored will actually see the money.

“The government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste – not because the law requires it, but simply because a district judge so ordered,” Alito wrote.

Hours after the high court issued its order, Ali directed both the Trump administration and the groups suing over the funds to submit a joint report by Thursday that proposes a schedule for the government “to come into compliance” with his initial order that the funds continue to flow to the groups.

The report, Ali said, must also include details to “address steps taken” by the administration to unfreeze the funds during the period before the Supreme Court temporarily halted his deadline as it considered Trump’s emergency appeal.

The judge said he wanted to see “specificity with respect to milestones and timelines for (the administration) coming into compliance” with his earlier order.

Related article Republicans push Musk to let Congress vote on DOGE cuts

In the meantime, at least one of the groups that challenged the administration’s efforts to freeze foreign aid said that while it was encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision, “irreparable damage” has already been done by the government’s actions.

The effects “have been immediate and devastating,” said Mark Hetfield, the president of HIAS, a Maryland-based nonprofit that provides services to refugees, asylum seekers and others.

“The stop-work orders that HIAS received from the State Department affect 450,000 of our clients around the world,” he added, affecting “immediate and life-saving programs.”

Ali is set to hear arguments on Thursday over a request by the groups for a preliminary injunction, a more substantial ruling that would indefinitely block the administration from enforcing Trump’s executive orders pausing foreign aid.

That order, too, will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.