Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.Trump-Appointed Judge Rules House Lacks Standing to Sue Trump Administration Over Border Wall Funding
"A seat in Congress comes with many prerogatives, but legal standing to superintend the execution of laws is not among them," wrote U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia.
June 03, 2019 at 06:41 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has found that the U.S. House of Representatives doesn't have standing to sue the Trump Administration over plans to redirect government funds to pay to build a wall on the nation's border with Mexico.
In a 24-page opinion issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia on Monday quoted from The Federalist Papers writing that judicial independence “requires that the courts 'take no active resolution whatever' in political fights between the other branches” of the federal government.
“And while the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress's legislative authority.” wrote McFadden, a Trump appointee to the Washington, D.C., federal trial court, in turning back the House's request for an injunction blocking the transfer of certain funds for construction projects at the border.
The Democratic-led House of Representatives sued the Trump administration in April claiming that the president's declaration of a national emergency at the Mexico border didn't justify funneling away funds appropriated to pay for anti-narcotics projects and military construction.
McFadden on Monday called the issue a “close question” and noted that he was not implying that Congress may never sue the Executive Branch to protect its powers. Still, he wrote that “a seat in Congress comes with many prerogatives, but legal standing to superintend the execution of laws is not among them.”
McFadden's ruling comes a little more than a week after a federal judge in Oakland, California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Administration from redirecting funds under the national emergency the president declared at the border in February. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. found on May 24 that the Administration had likely overstepped its statutory authority in allocating funds for construction between federal agencies. Gilliam has declined to stay the injunction as the administration seeks an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Read the opinion:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
'Vision': Judge David Tatel on the Value of Oral Argument and Reading Drafts Aloud
Snell & Wilmer's Andrew Young and the Case of the FBI's Secret Encrypted Phone Company
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
