WASHINGTON — On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered yet another favorable outcome for the Trump administration by permitting it to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid funds that had been allocated by Congress.

Initially, a federal judge had mandated that these funds be utilized by the end of the month, but the Supreme Court’s ruling has temporarily stalled this requirement.

In a concise order, the court acknowledged that the government had convincingly demonstrated that the organizations filing the lawsuit were prohibited from doing so under the Impoundment Control Act.

With its 6-3 conservative majority, the court remarked that the alleged damages to the Executive’s foreign policy conduct appear to surpass any potential detriment to the plaintiffs, which consist of several groups benefitting from foreign aid.

Since President Donald Trump commenced his second term in January, the court has approved 20 emergency requests from the administration, a frequency and decisiveness that are unparalleled.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan arguing that the legal matter at hand is unprecedented, indicating the court operated in “uncharted territory.”

Yet again, the majority nevertheless granted the emergency request made by the government without hearing oral arguments or issuing a fully reasoned decision, she added.

“We therefore should have denied this application, allowed the lower courts to go forward, and ensured that the weighty question presented here receives the consideration it deserves,” Kagan wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts had on Sept. 9 issued a temporary stay that put the lower court ruling on hold while the Supreme Court decided what next steps to take.

The Trump administration, which has aggressively sought to exert its power over Congress in recent months, has notified lawmakers of its intention not to spend the funds.

This action has sparked a debate over whether the president has such authority, as under the Constitution, it is the role of Congress to allocate money for the president to spend.

The Trump administration has already taken swift action to unravel the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government department that traditionally handed out billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to tackle such issues as access to water and disease prevention.

The money at issue was appropriated by Congress for the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. The Trump administration has said it wants to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid, but will spend another $6.5 billion that Congress appropriated.

The Impoundment Control Act was passed in 1974 to regulate the president’s control over the budget. That followed efforts by then-President Richard Nixon to withhold spending on programs he did not support.

The Trump administration says it can withhold the money via a process known as “rescission,” in which the president informs Congress of his intention not to spend certain funds.

But with little time left before the funds expire, Congress is unlikely to respond, even if it wanted to. Republicans who broadly support Trump’s policies control both chambers and are in the process of trying to fund the government for the next fiscal year before Oct. 1; otherwise, the government will shut down.

The administration’s decision to wait until the end of the fiscal year to notify Congress is a legally questionable tactic that has been called a “pocket rescission” and has not been used in nearly 50 years.

Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had ruled on Sept. 3 that the administration must spend the money unless Congress acts to withdraw it.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a court filing that Ali’s ruling imposed unacceptable restrictions on the president by, among other things, forcing the administration to engage in diplomatic discussions with other countries over how to spend the money

The underlying lawsuit challenging Trump’s rescission was brought by various groups led by the Global Health Council.

Their lawyers said in court papers that the administration’s legal arguments would turn the Impoundment Control Act on its head by reaching the conclusion that “Congress’s signature law meant to control impoundments actually provided the President vast new powers to impound funds, and made it virtually impossible to challenge impoundments in court.”