President Donald Trump's administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the panel expedite a decision on an emergency application regarding foreign aid funds mandated by Congress.

Writing for his Substack, Georgetown Law School Professor Steve Vladeck said that this is the 23rd emergency request that Trump sent to the High Court in seven months. Vladeck wrote that the Trump team "seems to be structuring at least some of its litigation decisions specifically to take advantage of its expectation that it can receive emergency relief from the Supreme Court."

In this case, he said that the Solicitor General is orchestrating the emergency to justify justices stepping in. Such procedural manipulation is all designed to trick the Court into getting involved, the legal scholar noted.

The administration is "downplaying the fact that the government forfeited the substantive claim on which it claims it is likely to succeed on the merits—by not properly raising it below; and misrepresenting what happened in the lower courts by conveniently leaving out any details that might draw the justices’ (or their clerks’) attention to those first two points."

Vladeck said on BlueSky that this is an example of the Trump administration "apparently banking on the view that the justices don't mind being played."

The issue arose after the Trump administration decided to shut down USAID and stopped delivering U.S.-grown food to those in famine-stricken areas of the world. Refusing to allocate the funds raises both statutory and constitutional challenges (including claims of unlawful "impoundment" of funds), said Vladeck.

A split decision from the D.C. Circuit appellate panel sided with the administration, but critics challenge the case, arguing that the decision was based on issues the government had itself failed to raise on time—violating norms against “sandbagging” in federal litigation.

There's an injunction in place, which puts everything on hold until the entire court process has been completed and formal decisions have been issued.

Vladeck closes by asking if granting the Trump administration's demand, given its questionable grounds, is the Supreme Court being manipulated or supporting the larger Trump agenda of eliminating significant portions of the federal government, even if it affects constitutional norms.

Read the full column here.