Border Patrol vehicle patrolling along the fence of the international border between San Diego, California and Tijuana, Mexico. Photo: Sherry V Smith/Shutterstock.com

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed claims brought by environmental groups alleging President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency to tap Pentagon funds for a border wall was unconstitutional, but allowed some claims alleging violations of administrative law to survive.

The Center for Biological Diversity and the Rio Grande International Study Center, each joined by other groups, filed separate lawsuits challenging Trump's actions, claiming it went beyond his powers as president and violated several other statutes.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee who joined the bench in 2017, on Thursday ruled that each lawsuit's claims that the president could not declare the national emergency was a political question and therefore not subject to judicial review.

"Although presidential declarations of emergencies—including this proclamation—have been at issue in many cases, no court has ever reviewed the merits of such a declaration," McFadden wrote.

The judge also dismissed the president as a defendant in the case, as he found the parties could still make their claims against other parts of the administration.

He did rule that some groups in the lawsuit, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement and GreenLatinos, did not have standing and dismissed them from the case. But for the other plaintiffs, he ruled they "have plausibly alleged that they will likely suffer injury because of the agency's actions" and could remain on the case.

The judge also struck down some of the parties' claims over specific statutes on how military funds can be used. But McFadden said some environmental claims raised in the complaint may fall under other statutes, and allowed those allegations to survive.

McFadden noted in his opinion that legal challenges over the border wall have played out in several federal courts. Lawsuits over the wall began shortly after Trump declared the national emergency to access the wall funds to end a record 35-day government shutdown in January 2019, after Congress refused to appropriate his requested amount of funds for border security.

McFadden himself last year ruled the House did not have standing to sue the Trump administration over diverted Pentagon dollars for border wall construction, finding they had to use political tools instead. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear the case en banc April 28.

The district judge has found himself overseeing several significant lawsuits involving the Trump administration. In addition to the border wall lawsuits, he is also presiding over the House's lawsuit seeking Trump's federal tax returns.

Read more:

Could the Coronavirus Pandemic Slow Down Trump Legal Fights?

DC Circuit Throws Out McGahn Ruling on House's Lack of Standing, Grants En Banc Rehearing

Judge Links Fate of House's Bid for Trump Tax Returns to DC Circuit Ruling on McGahn