.

Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, asking the justices to let the government block billions in foreign aid spending that Congress had already appropriated. The filing takes the U.S. Agency for International Development funding fight back to the high court for the second time in six months.

The appeals court’s decision was a big win for Trump. But while the appeals court vacated Judge Ali’s order, the court has yet to formally issue a mandate for the ruling to go into effect. That means Ali’s original order, which has a payment schedule laid out, has technically remained in place. As a result, the administration is in a race against time as it tries to avoid being forced to spend the full $12 billion before the end of the fiscal year in late September.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Trump’s U.S. solicitor general D. John Sauer wrote that, unless the justices act, the administration will be required to “rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds” by the end of the fiscal year deadline at the end of September. Sauer further argued that federal courts should not be the ones to adjudicate the dispute over foreign aid spending, but that the dispute should be left to the political branches.

“Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer wrote in his brief. He continued, “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 the case, a group of foreign aid groups that have projects that are funded by USAID grants, have taken the exact opposite position. They argue that, when it comes to spending money that has already been appropriated by Congress, the president has no authority to freeze spending at his discretion. The two key pieces of federal law that undergird the plaintiffs’ legal arguments are the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), a 1970s-era law designed to curtail executive branch overreach when it comes to federal spending, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The legal arguments on both sides raise big-picture questions about the scope of executive authority over federal spending and the balance of power between the White House and Congress. If the administration wins, the decision would represent an expansion of presidential authority to rescind and delay spending even after Congress has appropriated funding. A victory for the plaintiffs would work to further limit the executive branch’s ability to control the budget.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on a similar fight this year, narrowly voting 5-4 to rule on the dispute. With a fiscal year deadline on the horizon and billions of dollars at stake, the justices are now being asked to again wade into the political and legal fight.

For Trump, the fight is about furthering his efforts to reshape U.S. spending priorities and take more control over the federal foreign assistance programs. For aid groups and organizations involved in the fight, the stakes could not be higher, as the USAID funding for projects they had in place around the world risks being delayed or scrapped altogether if they don’t receive the money in time.

As the D.C. Circuit decision remains in partial limbo and the Trump administration pushes for an expedited order, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this latest emergency appeal could have implications beyond the fate of the $12 billion in foreign aid money. The decision could also set a precedent on the limits of presidential power when it comes to spending money already approved by Congress.