Roberts, Coney Barrett Defect Again, Force Trump Admin to Spend Money US Doesn't Have

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has increasingly aligned with Chief Justice John Roberts as one of the "conservative" Supreme Court members most likely to side with the liberal justices.

The latest instance occurred this week when Barrett and Roberts joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in ordering the Trump administration to reinstate United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funding "for work already completed."

On Wednesday, the majority directed the district court handling the case to "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance" with its temporary restraining order.

The following day, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, instructed that part of the disputed $2 billion be released by Monday, as reported by The Hill. He also indicated that he would later determine a timeline for the release of the remaining funds as he reviewed the claims presented.

Dissenting from the decision, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, argued that the ruling granted excessive authority to the lower court judge.

Alito noted that Roberts had previously issued a stay to block the lower court’s ruling while the Supreme Court examined the case.

“Unfortunately, a majority has now undone that stay. As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste — not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered. As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused. Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility,” Alito wrote.

He further criticized the decision, stating, “Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance.”

Alito advocated for addressing concerns on a case-by-case basis, rather than allowing the lower court judge to mandate a full $2 billion payout. The federal government is already running a nearly $2 trillion deficit, and the Trump administration, through the Department of Government Efficiency, has been working to reduce that burden to prevent financial instability.

While it has been expected that Roberts would act as the swing vote on the Supreme Court, many had hoped that Barrett and the other conservative justices would diminish the impact of his occasional shifts.

Barrett’s increasing tendency to align with Roberts in decisions favoring the liberal justices has been disappointing, particularly considering that she was appointed by Trump.

It is important to acknowledge that Barrett played a crucial role in the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Additionally, she voted in favor of ending race-based admissions in higher education in 2023 and reversing the 1984 Chevron decision, which had granted excessive regulatory power to administrative agencies. These votes reflected a firm conservative, constitutionalist stance.

However, a pattern appears to be emerging in which Barrett votes specifically against Trump.

Beyond the USAID ruling, there are additional examples of this trend.

In January, Barrett joined Roberts and the liberal justices in permitting sentencing to proceed in Trump’s New York "hush money" case. Trump's legal team contended that the case was riddled with constitutional violations and was politically motivated. The four other conservative justices sided with Trump’s request to delay the sentencing.

Barrett also sided with the liberal justices in last summer’s presidential immunity case involving Trump. The majority, led by Roberts, ruled that presidents are generally immune from prosecution for official actions taken while in office.

Barrett, in her dissent, stated, “The Constitution does not insulate Presidents from criminal liability for official acts. But any statute regulating the exercise of executive power is subject to a constitutional challenge.”

She continued, “Thus, a President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment. If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial.”

In other words, unless the law itself is unconstitutional as applied to a president, prosecution remains an option. The majority argued that the threat of criminal charges for official actions would significantly hinder a president’s ability to govern. They emphasized that the Constitution’s prescribed remedy for presidential misconduct is impeachment and removal, followed by potential prosecution.

Additionally, Barrett joined the liberal justices last spring in the Fischer case, which dealt with the prosecution of Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump. The majority ruled that a federal obstruction statute, typically applied to document destruction and evidence tampering, could not be used in these cases.

Barrett disagreed, writing in her dissent, “Statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway.” She further criticized the Court’s decision, stating, “The Court, abandoning that approach, does textual backflips to find some way — any way — to narrow the reach of subsection (c)(2). I respectfully dissent.”

Beyond these legal decisions, one additional moment sparked discussion. Following Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, Barrett's expression toward him was described as intense.

Has Barrett fully shifted against Trump? Time will tell, but the trend seems to be forming.