U.S. Supreme Court lets Trump use disputed funds for border wall
Send a link to a friend
[July 27, 2019]
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme
Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory by letting his
administration redirect $2.5 billion in money approved by Congress for
the Pentagon to help build his promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico
border even though lawmakers refused to provide funding.
The conservative-majority court on a 5-4 vote with the court's liberals
in dissent blocked in full a ruling by a federal judge in California
barring the Republican president from spending the money on the basis
that Congress did not specifically authorize the funds to be spent on
the wall project fiercely opposed by Democrats and Mexico's government.
"Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns
lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN
for Border Security and the Rule of Law!" Trump tweeted just minutes
after the court acted.
A brief order explaining the court's decision said the government "made
a sufficient showing" that the groups challenging the decision did not
have grounds to bring a lawsuit.
"Today's decision to permit the diversion of military funds for border
wall construction will wall off and destroy communities, public lands,
and waters in California, New Mexico, and Arizona," said Gloria Smith,
an attorney with environmental group the Sierra Club, which sued to
block the funds.
In a highly unusual move, Trump on Feb. 15 declared a national emergency
in a bid to fund the wall without congressional approval, an action
Democrats said exceeded his powers under the U.S. Constitution and
usurped the authority of Congress.
The administration has said it plans to redirect $6.7 billion from the
Departments of Defense and Treasury toward wall construction under the
emergency declaration after failing to convince Congress to provide the
money, including the $2.5 billion in Pentagon funding. Congress earlier
failed to provide $5.7 billion in wall funding demanded by Trump in a
showdown in which the president triggered a 35-day partial shutdown of
the federal government that ended in January.
[to top of second column]
|
The prototypes for U.S. President Donald Trump's border wall are
seen behind the border fence between Mexico and the United States,
in Tijuana, Mexico January 7, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge Duenes
CAMPAIGN PROMISE
The administration said a court decision was needed quickly because
it needs to spend the money before the end of September, when the
federal government's fiscal year ends.
Trump made the border wall a major 2016 campaign promise. The wall
is part of his hardline immigration policies that are central to his
2020 re-election bid. Trump has said the wall is needed to curb
illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the southern border.
Democrats have called the wall immoral, ineffective and expensive.
The Southern Border Communities Coalition, a group advocating for
people living in border areas, joined the Sierra Club in suing to
try to block Trump's action.
The challengers have said the wall would be disruptive to the
environment in part because it could worsen flooding problems and
have a negative impact on wildlife.
U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam ruled on May 30 in Oakland,
California that the administration's proposal to build parts of the
border wall in California, New Mexico and Arizona with money
appropriated for the Defense Department to use in the fight against
illegal drugs was unlawful. The judge issued an injunction barring
use of the Pentagon funds for a border wall.
The administration asked that the injunction barring use of the
reprogrammed funds be put on hold pending an appeal but the San
Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to do so.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; editing by Diane Craft and Cynthia
Osterman)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|