.

Nearly $12 billion in aid for USAID was left over from the previous fiscal year and must be spent by the end of the fiscal year on September 30. On his first day back in office in January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to suspend nearly all foreign aid spending. He said at the time the move was part of an effort to root out “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the foreign aid budget.

While it was a major victory for the Trump administration, the court has not yet issued a formal mandate, which would allow it to enforce the decision. In the absence of such a mandate, Judge Ali’s earlier order and the payment schedule that he issued are still technically in place. The Trump administration now faces a self-imposed deadline to avoid having to release the full $12 billion in spending before the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

In an emergency request to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said that by failing to issue a mandamus, the lower court “left in place an order requiring the government to rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds by September 30, 2021.” D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general who made the filing on Tuesday, added that the Supreme Court “should not let stand a federal court decision that requires the political branches of government to spend tens of billions of dollars in the way Congress intended.” Sauer continued: “Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits. This case accordingly presents a paradigmatic example of a claim for relief that is not within the independent authority of the federal courts.”

The plaintiffs in the case, which include a number of groups that work in foreign aid that are funded through USAID, have taken the opposite position. According to the plaintiffs, the president does not have the authority to rescind money that has already been approved by Congress for release. The main argument for the plaintiffs is based on a law known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), a statute passed in the 1970s designed to put some limits on the executive branch’s federal spending. The other key law cited by the plaintiffs is the Administrative Procedure Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on a similar dispute earlier this year. In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the justices said in favor of the Trump administration. With billions of dollars on the line and a tight deadline approaching, the administration is now hoping for a similar result from the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration is pushing hard for the court to intervene on the issue. In his filing, Sauer, the solicitor general, wrote that if the court does not take up the request by the Trump administration, “the government will have no choice but to start making payments toward $12 billion in foreign-aid funds that Congress has appropriated. This result is particularly dire because this dispute is not the kind that should be resolved by federal courts at all.” Sauer continued: “Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits. This case accordingly presents a paradigmatic example of a claim for relief that is not within the independent authority of the federal courts.”While it was a major victory for the Trump administration, the court has not yet issued a formal mandate, which would allow it to enforce the decision. In the absence of such a mandate, Judge Ali’s earlier order and the payment schedule that he issued are still technically in place. The Trump administration now faces a self-imposed deadline to avoid having to release the full $12 billion in spending before the end of the fiscal year on September 30.