Emergency application

Power to withhold foreign aid

Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition

Denied

No. 25A269Stay applicationFiled by the federal governmentPresented to The Chief JusticeFrom United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

What did the Court do?

The Court denied the request on September 26, 2025: the lower court's ruling stays in effect while the appeal continues.

Emergency rulings are temporary and do not decide the underlying case. Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Jackson would have ruled the other way.

Filed September 8, 2025Ruled September 26, 202518 days after filing

What's being asked

The federal government asks the Supreme Court to temporarily pause a district-court order requiring it to commit about $10.5 billion in foreign aid. The President had proposed canceling about $4 billion; aid groups challenge the government's withholding of money Congress appropriated. The government argues a law governing when officials may hold back appropriated funds bars their suit.

What the Court did

The Court gave the government emergency help and granted its stay request (a request for a temporary pause). It put the injunction on hold for funds covered by the August 28 message, pending appeal, and called its view preliminary, not final. Justice Kagan dissented (disagreed with the result); Justices Sotomayor and Jackson signed on to her dissent, and the order did not state other votes.

Dissented
Wrote separately
Vote not published

Dissenting · 3recorded against the Court's order: Sotomayorjoined Kagan's writing
Kaganwrote a dissent
Jacksonjoined Kagan's writing
Vote not published · 6the order does not say how they voted: Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett

The order records the positions of 3 of 9 justices. The Court usually does not say how each justice voted on an emergency application, so the rest are shown as not published.

Half of 300 rulings on applications decided without a response came 8 to 28 days after filing, and the median was 14 days; this one was ruled on 18 days after filing.

What it means

The pause is temporary and does not decide whether the government must spend the aid Congress approved. The government's appeal continues in the D.C. Circuit, and the docket lists no related Supreme Court case for a final decision.

Separate writings

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissenting
September 26, 2025
Read (PDF)

Sources

Facts on this page come from the Supreme Court docket, orders, and opinions for No. 25A269. The answers restate that record in plain words; explainer copy is written from the record and the filings only.

Checked October 4, 2026

Docket timeline

FiledSep 8, 2025
Application (25A269) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Application (PDF)Appendix (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ResponseSep 8, 2025
Opposition to Request for Immediate Administrative Stay filed.
Response (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
OrderSep 9, 2025
Order entered by The Chief Justice: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the September 3, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-400 and 1:25-cv-402, is hereby partially stayed for funds that are subject to the President’s August 28, 2025 recission proposal currently pending before Congress pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Friday, September 12th, 2025, by 4 p.m. (EDT).
1 day after filing
Docket entrySep 11, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Alan B. Morrison filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
ResponseSep 12, 2025
Response to application from respondent Global Health Council, et al. filed.
Response (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
Docket entrySep 12, 2025
Brief amicus curiae of Representative Rosa L. DeLauro filed.
Amicus brief (PDF)Document 2 (PDF)
ReplySep 15, 2025
Reply of applicant Department of State, et al. filed.
Reply (PDF)Proof of service (PDF)
Referred to the full CourtSep 26, 2025
Application (25A269) referred to the Court.
OrderSep 26, 2025
On September 3, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a preliminary injunction directing the Executive to obligate roughly $10.5 billion of appropriated aid funding set to expire on September 30. Of that $10.5 billion, $4 billion was proposed to be rescinded in a “special message” transmitted pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act. See 2 U. S. C. §681 <i>et seq</i>. After the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied stays of that order, the Government filed this application to stay the District Court’s injunction. The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The Government, at this early stage, has made a sufficient showing that the Impoundment Control Act precludes respondents’ suit, brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, to enforce the appropriations at issue here. The Government has also made a sufficient showing that mandamus relief is unavailable to respondents. And, on the record before the Court, the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents. This order should not be read as a final determination on the merits. The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief. The District Court’s September 3, 2025 order granting a preliminary injunction in case Nos. 1:25–cv–400 and 1:25–cv–402 is stayed as to the funding subject to the President’s August 28 special message, pending the disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissent. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a269_bp7c.pdf'>Opinion</a>)
18 days after filing
OrderSep 26, 2025
On September 3, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a preliminary injunction directing the Executive to obligate roughly $10.5 billion of appropriated aid funding set to expire on September 30. Of that $10.5 billion, $4 billion was proposed to be rescinded in a “special message” transmitted pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act. See 2 U. S. C. §681 et seq. After the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied stays of that order, the Government filed this application to stay the District Court’s injunction. The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The Government, at this early stage, has made a sufficient showing that the Impoundment Control Act precludes respondents’ suit, brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, to enforce the appropriations at issue here. The Government has also made a sufficient showing that mandamus relief is unavailable to respondents. And, on the record before the Court, the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents. This order should not be read as a final determination on the merits. The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief. The District Court’s September 3, 2025 order granting a preliminary injunction in case Nos. 1:25–cv–400 and 1:25–cv–402 is stayed as to the funding subject to the President’s August 28 special message, pending the disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, dissent.
18 days after filing
Order (PDF)

The case below

Ruling under review: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 25-5319, 25-5317
Filings: The application (PDF)Appendix with the lower-court ruling (PDF)