A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s request to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress frozen.

However, the court did not immediately say when the money must be released, allowing the White House to continue to dispute the issue in lower courts.

The ruling was 5-4.

The order was unsigned but four conservative justices dissented – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. That put five justices in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The majority noted that given a court-ordered deadline to spend the money last week had already passed, the lower courts should “clarify what obligations the government must fulfil to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.”

In a strongly worded dissent, Alito wrote that he was “stunned” by the court’s decision to permit the lower-court judge to order the administration to unfreeze the foreign aid at issue in the case.

Alito added: “A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.”

While the ruling was 5-4, it was “extremely modest,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

“The unsigned order does not actually require the Trump administration to immediately make up to $2 billion in foreign aid payments; it merely clears the way for the district court to compel those payments, presumably if it is more specific about the contracts that have to be honored,” Vladeck said. “The fact that four justices nevertheless dissented – vigorously – from such a decision is a sign that the Court is going to be divided, perhaps along these exact lines, in many of the more impactful Trump-related cases that are already on their way.”

The appeal raced to the high court within days – exceedingly fast by the federal judiciary’s standards. It is the second case to reach the justices dealing with Trump’s moves to consolidate power within the executive branch and dramatically reshape the government after taking power in January.

At the center of the case is billions in foreign aid from the State Department and the US Agency for International Development that Trump froze in January as he sought to clamp down spending and bring those agencies in line with his agenda. Several nonprofit groups that rely on the funding for global health and other programs sued, asserting that the administration’s moves usurped the power of Congress to control government spending and violated a federal law that dictates how agencies make decisions.

In a brief on Friday, the groups described the administration’s actions as having a “devastating” impact.

They told the court that the funding “advances US interests abroad and improves – and, in many cases, literally saves – the lives of millions of people across the globe.”

“In doing so, it helps stop problems like disease and instability overseas before they reach our shores,” the groups said.

US District Judge Amir Ali on February 13 ordered that much of the money continue to flow on a temporary basis while he reviewed the case. Days later, the plaintiffs argued that the administration was defying that order and continuing to block the spending and Ali then ordered the Trump administration to spend the money at issue by midnight Wednesday.

Ali was named to the bench by President Joe Biden.

The Trump administration rushed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court hours before that deadline, urging the court to at least pause it for a few days. The administration is making “substantial efforts” to review payment requests and spend the money, the government agued, but it couldn’t turn the spigot on fast enough to meet the Ali’s timeline.

The groups that sued have balked at that explanation, arguing that a small number of political appointees within the administration “are refusing to authorize essentially any payments.”

“The government has not taken ‘any meaningful steps’ to come into compliance,” the groups said a Supreme Court filing earlier Friday.

Roberts, acting alone, gave the administration a brief reprieve on Wednesday, issuing what’s known as an “administrative stay” that pushed pause on the case so that both sides could submit written arguments. The chief justice handles emergency cases rising from the federal appeals court in Washington, DC.

Among the groups challenging the freeze are the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, a New York-based organization working to speed HIV prevention and the Global Health Council, based in Washington, DC, which represents other groups that administer health programs.

The Trump administration revealed in court filings in the case that it is attempting to terminate more than 90% of the USAID foreign aid awards.

“In total, nearly 5,800 USAID awards were terminated, and more than 500 USAID awards were retained,” a filing from the administration said.

“The total ceiling value of the retained awards is approximately $57 billion,” the filing said.

In addition to the USAID award terminations, “approximately 4,100 State awards were terminated, and approximately 2,700 State awards were retained,” the government told a lower court, referring to the State Department.

Aid programs around the world have ground to a halt due to the sweeping funding freeze and review of billions of dollars of assistance. It also comes as the Trump administration has either placed the majority of USAID’s workforce on leave or terminated them.

Democrats celebrate ruling
On Capitol Hill, Democrats said the ruling shows that Trump’s power to freeze spending is not unlimited.

“That money had already been appropriated, things were already in action, and so I think the Supreme Court ruled the right way, and now the administration needs to unfreeze them and allow those contractors and the work to be done,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Commitee.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal called it “a very important ruling” from “a Trump-dominated court.”

“I think it reinforces … that Congress has authorization to appropriate money, and that people rely on that authorization for those programs, and that when you do the work, you should get paid when it’s been authorized,” the Washington state Democrat told CNN.

Asked if she’s confident the payments will be turned on, Jayapal said she’s not confident about anything, “but I hope that the Trump administration will pay attention to the Supreme Court.”