WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court upheld the Trump administration’s decision to withhold nearly $9 billion in foreign aid, ruling Wednesday that advocacy groups challenging the move lacked the legal standing to pursue their case. The decision allows the administration to maintain control over funds previously allocated by Congress.

The lawsuit, initiated by several aid organizations, contested President Donald Trump’s authority to retract the appropriated funds. The court’s decision came as a part of a broader rescissions package approved by Congress, which included various budgetary changes.

In a 2-1 ruling, the court determined that only the Government Accountability Office (GAO) possesses the legal authority under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to question such executive actions. The judges noted that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a constitutional basis for their complaint.

Judge Karen Henderson, who authored the majority opinion, emphasized that attempts to challenge presidential actions by framing them as constitutional issues do not hold merit, especially when intertwined with policy decisions. This perspective indicates a clear delineation of power between the executive and legislative branches.

However, Judge Florence Pan disagreed, advocating for greater judicial oversight in cases where a president may be perceived as circumventing congressional authority. She expressed concerns that the majority opinion underestimates the significance of appropriated funds, suggesting that disagreements over their use warrant more serious constitutional scrutiny.

Judge Gregory Katsas, appointed by Trump, aligned with Henderson’s ruling, which may reinforce a trend favoring executive discretion over budgetary matters. The implications of this ruling extend beyond immediate funding questions, potentially reshaping the landscape of executive power in budgetary control.

Advocates for the aid groups expressed disappointment, stating that the ruling weakens the checks and balances essential for a healthy democracy. The capacity for courts to intervene in matters concerning congressional appropriations remains a crucial point of contention as the political climate continues to evolve.

As broader implications of the ruling settle, it could provoke further discussions regarding the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, particularly in the context of foreign aid and budgetary reallocations.