Here's Who Wants to Sue Trump Over the Border Wall
Several groups said they planned to sue the administration over what they viewed as an illegal power grab.
February 15, 2019 at 05:14 PM
4 minute read
The firestorm over President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border ignited with a fury Friday, as several groups vowed to sue the administration over what they've decried as an end-run around the Constitution.
Trump announced during a Friday press conference that he would declare a national emergency to begin construction of a wall. Much of the $8 billion dedicated for the project would come from diverting funds appropriated for other purposes, including the Defense Department's military construction projects.
“I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster,” Trump said during a press conference Friday. Legal experts have said those remarks would be used in lawsuits to show that Trump's justifications for a national emergency declaration were nonexistent.
By Friday afternoon, several groups emerged claiming they would be a check on the Trump administration. None had yet filed lawsuits, but their arguments broadly were that the executive branch would write off Article I of the Constitution, that Trump has unlawfully redirected appropriated funds away from other federal programs, and that the declaration of an “emergency” was not justified.
“This is a patently illegal power grab that hurts American communities and flouts the checks and balances that are hallmarks of our democracy. We will be filing a lawsuit early next week,” Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Friday.
The ACLU said it would argue Trump's use of emergency powers to override Congress' funding restrictions is “unprecedented” and that Trump lacked the statutory authority to use funds Congress dedicated for military construction projects to erect his border wall.
From the West Coast, California Gov. Gavin Newsom promised swift legal action, arguing Trump's plan would divert funds the state's law enforcement used to combat drug cartels “California will see you in court,” he said.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a frequent legal foe of the Trump administration, also tweeted the day before that the state “will do what we must to hold him accountable. No one is above the law.”
Also vowing to join the fray are various states' attorneys general, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, who said Friday her office would use “every legal tool” at its disposal to fight Trump's emergency declaration.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson teased similar legal action: “If Washington is harmed, my office will take appropriate steps to block this unlawful action,” he said Thursday in a press release.
Another group—Protect Democracy—said Thursday that it had prepared a lawsuit on behalf of El Paso County, Texas, and the Border Network for Human Rights, to challenge Trump. The group said it would work alongside the Niskanen Center.
Trump said his administration would likely lose any legal challenge to his declaration at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He said the case would then make its way to the Supreme Court, where “hopefully we'll get a fair shake and we'll win.”
Trump has been a frequent critic of the Ninth Circuit, which has frequently ruled against his policies. Trump did notch a victory at the Ninth Circuit over border wall construction earlier this week.
Looming over the president's declaration is the possibility of a court battle with the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a joint statement, described Trump's move as an end-run around the Constitution and a violation of “Congress's exclusive power of the purse.”
“The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available,” they said.
Read more:
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 AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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