The Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling that harms the U.S. economy.

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's request to block a lower court order that required the government to pay nearly 2 billion dollars in foreign aid funds.

This decision provides relative relief to the deficient international aid groups and contractors seeking payment for already completed projects.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices indicated that the February 26 deadline imposed by the lower court for the government to pay the funds had already expired, and they returned the case to the district court to clarify additional details about the payment.

Once again, Amy Coney Barrett aligned with the leftist justices of the Supreme Court, showing how the Democratic Party gained an ally within the justice body.

The case centers on the Trump administration's obligation to pay approximately 1.9 billion dollars to foreign aid groups and contractors for projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Trump administration had argued that the payment deadline imposed by the lower court judge, Amir Ali, was "impossible" to meet. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily agreed on February 26 to pause the lower court's order, although he did not explain the reasons for this decision.

This postponement prevented the aid groups from filing a civil contempt motion against the Trump administration, which, according to some affected employees, could have expedited the process to recover the unpaid debt.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court expressed that, since the payment deadline had already passed and in view of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the district court needed to clarify the government's obligations to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.

This delay could allow Trump officials to continue delaying the invalid payment. The aid groups argued that the pause granted by Roberts prevented them from advancing in their attempt to enforce the outstanding debt.

On March 2, the acting United States Solicitor General, Sarah Harris, filed a new brief arguing that, although the plaintiffs' claims might be "legitimate," the deadline to pay the bills imposed by Judge Ali was not "logistically or technically feasible".

Harris also argued that the lower court's order could violate the authorities granted to the president under the Constitution, especially regarding foreign policy and control of foreign aid distribution.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs rejected this claim, arguing that the Trump administration had taken no steps to comply with the order to unlock the funds.

Additionally, they erroneously claimed that the Trump administration had acted quickly to dismantle the systems necessary to make payments to the aid groups, which had created bottlenecks in the process.

The legal challenge takes place in the context of the Trump administration's plans to significantly reduce U.S. foreign aid. The president had proposed cutting 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts and reducing foreign aid spending by 60 billion dollars.

Many of the aid groups that sued the administration have already lost most of their funding.

Scott Greytak, director of the group U.S. Transparency International, warned that the elimination of much of U.S. foreign aid could pose economic and security risks.

He noted that the lack of funding in countries with high levels of corruption could allow an increase in transnational corruption and other crimes, which could create obstacles for U.S. companies seeking to expand into foreign markets.

Additionally, he warned that this void could be exploited by international competitors, such as China, to fill the space left by the U.S. withdrawal.

However, Greytak omitted the large waste incurred during the Democratic Biden administration, and the curse that caused on the U.S. economy.

The Supreme Court allowed the judicial proceedings regarding the payment of foreign aid funds to continue, despite the correct objections of the Trump administration.

The decision could allow aid groups to seek a faster resolution, while the administration continues to face legal challenges over its foreign aid reduction policies.