The Nation’s High Court just handed down a massive ruling. But no one is talking about what it really means.
And a U.S. attorney just noticed something about the SCOTUS that everyone has missed.
Supreme Court Ruling Signals Checks and Balances Prevail, Dershowitz Says
On Thursday, constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz weighed in on a significant Supreme Court decision that went against President Donald Trump’s administration, asserting that it demonstrates the enduring strength of the nation’s system of checks and balances. The ruling, decided by a 5-4 vote on Wednesday, upheld an injunction from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, ordering the Trump administration to release $2 billion to organizations for work already completed. This came after the president had frozen the funds through an executive order signed on January 20, initiating a review of foreign aid programs. According to NBC News, Judge Ali mandated on Thursday that these payments must be disbursed to workers by March 10.
Speaking on “CUOMO” with host Chris Cuomo, Dershowitz elaborated on the Supreme Court’s intent behind the decision. He suggested that the ruling was less about legal precision and more about sending a clear signal to the Trump administration regarding the limits of its power. “It was a very hastily written, not particularly thought through, opinion, but it probably came to the right result,” Dershowitz told Cuomo. “Its goal was to send a message to the Trump administration: ‘Wait, you can’t do everything. We still have a system of checks and balances and we’re going to be reviewing things like this. You acted too hastily. Instead of saying, ready, aim fire, you did fire and then ready and aim. You cut much too quickly, not with a scalpel, but with a chainsaw, and so everybody acted too quickly.’”
Dershowitz emphasized the takeaway from the ruling, stating, “I think the lesson here is that our system of checks and balances is still operating.” He pointed out the composition of the majority, noting, “There are five justices of the Supreme Court, even including one who was appointed by Donald Trump, who will hold Donald Trump to account. That’s the clear message.”
Dershowitz was referring to the many Democrat and Leftist talking heads who were claiming that Donald Trump would be given total authoritarian control of the federal government because of the SCOTUS presidential immunity ruling from 2024. Of course, that was never the case and it was fearmongering on the part of the Democrat Party and its allies.
The majority in the 5-4 decision included Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sided with the court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. On the opposing side, Associate Justice Samuel Alito penned a dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Alito argued that Judge Ali overstepped his authority by forcing the administration to release the funds. “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,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.” Interestingly, Dershowitz noted on Wednesday that he believed Alito’s dissent was correct “on the merits.”
The ruling has reignited debates about the Trump administration’s approach to governance. In February, several liberal legal scholars writing in The New York Times described the president’s efforts to overhaul the federal government as triggering a “constitutional crisis,” with one labeling his actions “lawless.” Democratic lawmakers echoed this sentiment that same month, accusing Trump and Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), of steering the country toward a similar crisis.
Criticism has also come from prominent Democrats. California Senator Adam Schiff took aim at Trump after the president posted on Truth Social on February 15, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Schiff fired back on X, writing, “Spoken like a true dictator.” Additionally, following the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling on presidential immunity, former New Jersey Representative Bill Pascrell Jr. told The Hill that the decision amounted to “nothing less than a blueprint for a lawless dictator to take root in the Oval Office of the White House.”
Clearly, that is not the case, though. While Donald Trump has been aggressive with his executive decisions and has been backed by the courts at times in recent weeks, his administration has been checked by the courts when necessary. This is the intention of the checks and balances and ensures that each branch is able to conduct themselves the way they’d like to with the full knowledge that the other two branches of government will use their constitutional rights to balance.
For Dershowitz the ruling serves as a reminder that the judiciary remains a vital check on the administration, ensuring that no single branch operates without oversight. As the March 10 deadline for the $2 billion payout approaches, the conversation around Trump’s authority—and the systems designed to constrain it—shows no sign of quieting down.
The Federalist Wire will update you on any major updates from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Trump administration.
