.

In an emergency application filed on Tuesday night, lawyers for the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to freeze billions in foreign aid spending that Congress had already approved. The emergency application sent the USAID funding fight back to the high court for the second time in just six months.

Underlying the latest legal maneuvering is nearly $12 billion in foreign aid that Congress had set aside for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and that is legally required to be disbursed before September 30, the end of the fiscal year. President Donald Trump acted quickly on the issue after returning to the White House in January, signing an executive order on his first day back in office directing the federal government to stop nearly all foreign aid disbursements. At the time, the president described the move as part of a broader effort to root out “waste, fraud, and abuse” in overseas spending.

In response to the executive order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington, D.C., ruled last month that the White House was legally required to continue to release funds for projects that Congress had previously approved. In a decision blocking the Trump administration’s attempts to freeze foreign aid spending, Judge Ali required the administration to resume payments on billions of dollars in USAID grants.

The Trump administration appealed. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case and ultimately voted 2-1 to vacate Judge Ali’s order. Writing for the majority, Judge Karen L. Henderson, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, said that the plaintiffs in the case — foreign aid groups looking to restore their grant payments — didn’t have sufficient legal standing to sue the administration. Henderson, in the ruling, noted that the groups lacked a proper “cause of action” under what is known as the doctrine of impoundment.

While that decision from the appeals court was a major victory for the Trump administration, the court has not yet issued what is known as a formal mandate, which is needed before the ruling can be enforced. Because of the delay, Judge Ali’s original order and the payment schedule that he put in place remain technically in place. As a result, the administration is racing against the clock to avoid being forced to pay out the entire $12 billion before the fiscal year ends at the end of September.

Emergency Request and Legal Arguments

In the emergency request filed with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that unless the justices intervene, the government will be forced to “rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds before September 30.” Sauer added that the underlying dispute over the foreign aid spending should not be resolved by the federal courts. Instead, he argued that the case should be left to the “political branches” of government.

“Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer wrote in the filing. He continued: “Any lingering dispute about the proper disposition of funds that the President seeks to rescind shortly before they expire should be left to the political branches, not effectively prejudged by the district court.”

In contrast to Sauer’s arguments, the plaintiffs in the case, which is a group of foreign aid organizations whose projects are funded by USAID, say just the opposite. In their view, the president is not legally allowed to unilaterally withhold money that Congress has already appropriated. The plaintiffs are leaning heavily on what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), a 1970s law that was passed to rein in executive branch power over federal spending, and the Administrative Procedure Act as the key pieces of federal law in their case.

This legal fight over foreign aid and executive branch power over the budget has raised broader questions about the president’s constitutional authority and the scope of presidential power. If the Trump administration wins, it would signal that the president has the right to rescind or delay congressionally appropriated spending. If the plaintiffs win, that could place further constraints on executive discretion.

The Supreme Court already had to weigh in on a similar lawsuit, handing down a narrow 5-4 decision on the matter earlier this year. Now, with the September deadline looming and billions of dollars at stake, the justices are once again being called on to wade into the fight.

For Trump, the case is the latest front in an effort to reshape U.S. spending priorities and to exert more control over foreign assistance programs. For the aid organizations, the future is on the line. Without the promised funds, projects already in progress across the globe could be cut or shuttered.