The US Supreme Court heard a challenge to a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of visitors
The plaintiffs—aid organizations working with USAID and the State Department—were asked to respond by Friday at noon. AFP

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in Wednesday to pause a court-imposed deadline requiring the Trump administration to release $2 billion in frozen foreign aid.

The Trump administration argued that it was unable to meet the midnight deadline set by Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, Reuters reported.

Roberts issued a temporary order, known as an "administrative stay," putting the deadline on hold. This action gives the court a few days to review the case and the administration's request to block the ruling. However, it does not resolve the larger issues raised by the case.

As part of the order, the plaintiffs -- aid organizations that contract with or receive grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department -- were asked to respond by Friday at noon.

Trump administration's efforts to delay compliance

The Trump administration had rushed to the Supreme Court just hours before the midnight deadline, seeking the justices' intervention. The government claimed it had already made final decisions to end most U.S. foreign aid contracts and grants. However, it insisted it could not meet the court's imposed deadline.

Judge Ali had imposed a temporary order on Feb. 13, instructing the funds to be released, while the case was being considered.

"The district court's imminent and arbitrary deadline makes full compliance impossible," acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court on Wednesday, reported CNN.

The dispute over the foreign aid funding began after lawsuits were filed by aid organizations that alleged the U.S. government had unlawfully frozen payments for foreign aid. The plaintiffs argued that the government must comply with the court's orders.

The Trump administration has been cutting back significantly on U.S. foreign aid, including eliminating more than 90% of USAID contracts and reducing over $58 billion in global assistance.

On his first day in office last month, President Donald Trump had ordered a 90-day pause on all foreign aid. This order, along with subsequent stop-work directives halting USAID operations globally, has disrupted the delivery of life-saving food and medical aid.

The administration has defended these cuts as part of its "America First" agenda.

Despite multiple court orders since mid-February to release the funds, the Trump administration has continued to freeze payments. On Wednesday, it stated that it had completed its review of aid contracts, terminating thousands of them and keeping only a few hundred.

"The government," Harris stated, "is undertaking substantial efforts to review payment requests and release payments."

"The lengths that the government is willing to go to flout a court order, all for the goal of ending life-saving humanitarian assistance, is staggering," said Allison Zieve, a lawyer representing two plaintiffs, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network, on Wednesday.

Legal and political implications of the dispute

The dispute highlights a broader legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's policies and its response to court rulings. The U.S. Justice Department lawyers argue that the administration has the right to suspend agreements while reviewing their compliance with policy.

According to Steve Vladeck, professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Roberts' decision does not reveal how the court will handle Trump or the foreign aid freeze as a whole.

"It's really just a play for time – in this case, perhaps as little as two days – to give the justices time to sort out whether or not they should pause Judge Ali's ruling or force the government to turn the challenged foreign aid funding back on while the litigation challenging its suspension continues," Vladeck pointed out.

Both Ali and a Rhode Island federal judge have criticized the Trump administration for not following their orders in separate cases involving freeze on federal payments. The administration insists it is acting in good faith to interpret and comply with the orders.