.

Attorneys for the Trump administration on Tuesday night asked the Supreme Court to let it block billions in foreign aid payments, which Congress had approved earlier. If approved by the Supreme Court, it would take the case back to the Supreme Court for the second time in six months.

The case is about the payment of nearly $12 billion in aid to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), most of which the U.S. Government was required to disburse before the end of the fiscal year on September 30. Trump, as soon as he returned to power in January, had signed an executive order on his first day in office instructing the federal government to suspend almost all foreign aid payments. He had justified the move as part of his efforts to reduce “waste, fraud and abuse” in foreign spending.

Trump’s order was quickly challenged in court, and in February, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali of Washington, D.C., issued an injunction on the administration’s move. The judge held that the White House is under a legal obligation to continue releasing funds meant for projects for which the money had already been appropriated by Congress. As per Judge Ali’s order, the Trump administration had to resume payments on grants worth billions of dollars to USAID.

Trump’s administration did not take this lying down. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took up the case earlier this month and overturned Judge Ali’s injunction by a 2-1 majority. Writing for the majority, George H.W. Bush appointee Judge Karen L. Henderson held that the plaintiffs, which in this case were the foreign aid groups seeking to resume the grant payments, did not have the necessary legal grounds to sue the administration. Henderson stated that the plaintiffs did not have a proper “cause of action” under what is known as the doctrine of impoundment.

The appeals court’s ruling was a big win for Trump, but there is a catch. The court has yet to issue a formal mandate, and that order has not come yet. That means the temporary order by Judge Ali and his payment schedule would remain in effect technically. This is what the Trump administration is desperately trying to avoid as it is now running out of time. If it is not allowed to proceed, the federal government will be forced to disburse the full $12 billion on foreign aid before the fiscal year closes at the end of September.

Lawyers for the U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who filed the emergency request at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, said that unless the court acted, the U.S. Government would be forced to “rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds by the September 30 deadline.” Sauer further added that the dispute should not be allowed to go before a federal judge but left to the political branches of the government.

“Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer wrote in the filing. “Instead, by enacting the impoundment statute, Congress exercised the spending power and committed appropriated funds to their designated purposes.” He further wrote in the filing that “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.”

The Plaintiffs in this case, which is a group of foreign aid organizations whose projects depended on USAID money, say the opposite. The aid organizations have stated that the president does not have the legal right to block funds that Congress has already appropriated. They argue that the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of the 1970s, which was enacted to check executive power over federal spending, and the Administrative Procedure Act are the primary statutory grounds for their argument.

The dispute has also given rise to larger issues about executive power and the extent of authority the White House has over the federal purse relative to Congress. If the government wins the case, then it would strengthen the president’s power to rescind or delay a payment even after Congress had appropriated money. If the plaintiffs win the case, then it would further constrain the power of the White House over the budget.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already taken up a similar dispute earlier this year in a narrow 5-4 decision. Now, with the fiscal deadline approaching and billions of dollars at stake, the Supreme Court has once again been approached to step into the ongoing conflict.

The case is part of Trump’s larger effort to change the way in which the U.S. spends its money and also increase his control over foreign aid programs. For the aid groups, which are the plaintiffs, they have a lot at stake because if they are unable to get the funds, then their projects underway at various locations around the world would have to be downsized or even closed completely.

With the decision of the Appeals court in partial limbo and the Trump administration aggressively seeking immediate relief, the Supreme Court’s move in the latest emergency appeal could help decide the fate of $12 billion in foreign aid as well as set the tone for the extent of the presidential power to manage money once it is appropriated by Congress.