Justices Will Let Trump Build Border Wall Without Congressional Funding
The court was divided. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would not have disturbed an injunction.
July 26, 2019 at 06:39 PM
5 minute read
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily halted a federal court injunction that was prohibiting the Trump administration from using certain funds to pay for a border wall that Congress has not approved.
The high court, voting along ideological lines, said the Trump administration made a sufficient showing that the challengers had no cause of action to seek review of the decision to use Defense Department funds.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would not have granted the stay. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed the government to go forward withe preparations for the wall but not to begin actual construction.
“Allowing the government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would alleviate the most pressing harm claimed by the government without risking irreparable harm to respondents,” Breyer wrote.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit earlier refused to disturb the injunction, and the Justice Department went to the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump has touted a border wall as a central part of his administration's move to restrict the arrival of immigrants along the southern border with Mexico.
Lawsuits in Washington, California and Texas urged judges to stop the administration from using certain Defense Department and other funds for a project for which Congress has chosen not to provide appropriations. The justices' decision effectively allows Trump start building portions of the border wall.
In the California case, the Sierra Club challenged the transfer of $2.5 billion by the acting secretary of defense from other appropriation accounts into the appropriation account that the Defense Department uses to fund its counter-narcotic efforts.
Noel Francisco, the U.S. solicitor general, told the justices that the funds transfer was made “pursuant to express statutory authority” and at the request of the Department of Homeland Security “for assisting in combating the enormous flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.” The Trump administration wants to use the money to construct more than 100 miles of fencing along the border.
The district court misread the statutory text in ruling that the acting secretary exceeded his authority, Francisco claimed. He also said the recreational and aesthetic interests of the Sierra Club and other private parties do not fall within the “zone of interests” protected by the transfer statute.
The Sierra Club challengers, represented by Cecellia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union, countered that a stay “would dramatically upend the status quo, irrevocably injure delicate public lands, and permit defendants to irretrievably commit taxpayer funds in contravention of Congress's considered spending judgment.”
Wang argued that the funds transfer was unauthorized by the plain language of the statutes that the government invoked “and raise serious constitutional concerns in light of Congress's exclusive control over the public fisc.”
If a stay were granted, she added, “and wall construction begins, there will be no turning back. By essentially handing defendants an irrevocable victory, a stay would accomplish the opposite of a stay's proper purpose: providing interim relief to allow for considered review.”
The U.S. House of Representatives, represented by House general counsel Douglas Letter and a team from Sidley Austin, including Supreme Court veteran Carter Phillips, filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers in the high court.
“This case arises out of the Administration's disregard for the bedrock constitutional principle that '[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,'” Letter wrote.
California and New Mexico, both border states, also filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers as did the Tohono O'Odham Nation, represented by Samuel Daughety of Dentons. Lawrence Joseph of Washington, D.C., represented U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, R-Kentucky, an amicus party supporting the government.
The House is a plaintiff in a lawsuit in Washington's federal trial court. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia in June concluded the House did not have standing to sue over the border-wall funding. The House has appealed.
The court's order is posted below:
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 All6th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Trending Stories
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