The D.C. Circuit’s realpolitik orders in the foreign aid funding case by Chris Geidner
What happened? Law Dork digs in. Read on Substack
A federal appeals court on Thursday evening took steps that Democratic appointees wrote could represent that best possible way of helping organizations funded by foreign aid payments to get money before a quickly approaching September 30 deadline.
It was the latest unusual sets of rulings in a case challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to cut foreign aid funding — raising the “impoundment” question about the president’s ability not to spend money that Congress has, with its control over appropriations, directed the federal government to spend — that has been up to the U.S. Supreme Court already twice this year.
On Thursday evening over the course of 30 minutes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took seven actions that ultimately sent the case — technically, a pair of cases — back to the district court, where it is before U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.
It was a stark sign of where we’re at: Judges on the court generally thought of as second only to the Supreme Court taking strategic steps to try to protect people and organizations’ rights due to the ways other branches — and actors within their own branch — are failing to do so. (snip-go read the rest, if you’re interested. It’s very well-written.)
This is a thread on Bluesky. One doesn’t need an account to read there. It’s also an excellent explanation.
This was an extraordinarily shrewd *and* principled resolution by the en banc court, in a case in which the various arguments in the trial court and on appeal were *almost* hopelessly entangled and hard to parse. Of greatest importance are two things: [1]
[image or embed]— Marty Lederman (@martylederman.bsky.social) August 28, 2025 at 7:48 PM
And I got this all on Friday, but was out for a while, so here it is for Saturday mid-morning beverage. https://morningmemo.talkingpointsmemo.com/i/172269056/for-the-legal-nerds –A.
Scottie's Playtime 