This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/us/politics/supreme-court-border-wall-trump.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court Lets Trump Proceed on Border Wall | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to build a wall along parts of the Mexican border while litigation over paying for it proceeds. | WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to build a wall along parts of the Mexican border while litigation over paying for it proceeds. |
| A trial judge had prohibited the administration from transferring $2.5 billion from the Pentagon’s budget to fund the effort, and an appeals court had refused to enter a stay while it considered the administration’s appeal. | A trial judge had prohibited the administration from transferring $2.5 billion from the Pentagon’s budget to fund the effort, and an appeals court had refused to enter a stay while it considered the administration’s appeal. |
| The Supreme Court entered a stay, allowing construction to proceed while the litigation continues. | The Supreme Court entered a stay, allowing construction to proceed while the litigation continues. |
| The court’s four more liberal justices dissented. One of them, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, wrote that he would have allowed preparatory work but not construction. | The court’s four more liberal justices dissented. One of them, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, wrote that he would have allowed preparatory work but not construction. |
| In February, President Trump declared a national emergency along the Mexican border. The declaration followed a two-month impasse with Congress over funding to build his long-promised barrier wall, one that gave rise to the longest partial government shutdown in the nation’s history. | In February, President Trump declared a national emergency along the Mexican border. The declaration followed a two-month impasse with Congress over funding to build his long-promised barrier wall, one that gave rise to the longest partial government shutdown in the nation’s history. |
| After Congress appropriated only a fraction of what Mr. Trump had sought, he announced that he would act unilaterally to spend billions more. | After Congress appropriated only a fraction of what Mr. Trump had sought, he announced that he would act unilaterally to spend billions more. |
| Soon after, two advocacy groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union — the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition — sued to stop Mr. Trump’s plan to use money meant for military programs to build barriers along the border in what he said was an effort to combat drug trafficking. | Soon after, two advocacy groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union — the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition — sued to stop Mr. Trump’s plan to use money meant for military programs to build barriers along the border in what he said was an effort to combat drug trafficking. |
| Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., of the United States District Court in Oakland, Calif., blocked the effort in a pair of decisions that said the statute the administration had relied on to justify the transfer did not authorize it. | Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., of the United States District Court in Oakland, Calif., blocked the effort in a pair of decisions that said the statute the administration had relied on to justify the transfer did not authorize it. |
| “The case is not about whether the challenged border barrier construction plan is wise or unwise. It is not about whether the plan is the right or wrong policy response to existing conditions at the southern border of the United States,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “Instead, this case presents strict legal questions regarding whether the proposed plan for funding border barrier construction exceeds the executive branch’s lawful authority.” | “The case is not about whether the challenged border barrier construction plan is wise or unwise. It is not about whether the plan is the right or wrong policy response to existing conditions at the southern border of the United States,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “Instead, this case presents strict legal questions regarding whether the proposed plan for funding border barrier construction exceeds the executive branch’s lawful authority.” |
| A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, refused to stay Judge Gilliam’s injunction while the court considered the government’s appeal. | A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, refused to stay Judge Gilliam’s injunction while the court considered the government’s appeal. |
| The public interest, the majority said, “is best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction.” | The public interest, the majority said, “is best served by respecting the Constitution’s assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congress’s understanding of the public interest as reflected in its repeated denial of more funding for border barrier construction.” |
| In urging the Supreme Court to intercede, Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general, wrote that the plaintiffs’ “interests in hiking, bird watching and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.” | In urging the Supreme Court to intercede, Noel J. Francisco, the solicitor general, wrote that the plaintiffs’ “interests in hiking, bird watching and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.” |
| Mr. Francisco argued that the lower courts had misread two provisions of a federal law in concluding that the transfer was not authorized. The law allows reallocation of money to address “unforeseen military requirements” where the expenditures had not already been “denied by Congress.” Mr. Francisco wrote that the drug enforcement measures were unforeseen when the Defense Department made its budget request and that Congress had never addressed the particular narcotics measures. | Mr. Francisco argued that the lower courts had misread two provisions of a federal law in concluding that the transfer was not authorized. The law allows reallocation of money to address “unforeseen military requirements” where the expenditures had not already been “denied by Congress.” Mr. Francisco wrote that the drug enforcement measures were unforeseen when the Defense Department made its budget request and that Congress had never addressed the particular narcotics measures. |
| In response, the A.C.L.U. said that the central issue in the case was straightforward. The administration, the group wrote, “lacks authority to spend taxpayer funds on a wall that Congress considered and denied.” | In response, the A.C.L.U. said that the central issue in the case was straightforward. The administration, the group wrote, “lacks authority to spend taxpayer funds on a wall that Congress considered and denied.” |
| “This was a deliberate decision by Congress,” the A.C.L.U.’s brief said. “Less than six months ago, this country endured the longest government shutdown in its history due to Congress’s refusal to appropriate funds for the wall construction at issue here.” That meant, the brief said, that the construction was, in the words of the federal law, “denied by Congress.” | “This was a deliberate decision by Congress,” the A.C.L.U.’s brief said. “Less than six months ago, this country endured the longest government shutdown in its history due to Congress’s refusal to appropriate funds for the wall construction at issue here.” That meant, the brief said, that the construction was, in the words of the federal law, “denied by Congress.” |
| In a separate case, the House also challenged that administration’s actions. | In a separate case, the House also challenged that administration’s actions. |
| In June, Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the House could not show that it had suffered the sort of injury that gave it standing to sue. Courts, he wrote, should generally resolve disputes between the other two branches only as a last resort. | In June, Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the House could not show that it had suffered the sort of injury that gave it standing to sue. Courts, he wrote, should generally resolve disputes between the other two branches only as a last resort. |
| Here, he wrote, “Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power,” including legislation “to expressly restrict the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall.” | Here, he wrote, “Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power,” including legislation “to expressly restrict the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall.” |
| In a Supreme Court brief supporting the opponents of the border wall, lawyers for the House said the cases posed a fundamental question. “Under our constitutional scheme,” they wrote, “an immense wall along our border simply cannot be constructed without funds appropriated by Congress for that purpose.” | In a Supreme Court brief supporting the opponents of the border wall, lawyers for the House said the cases posed a fundamental question. “Under our constitutional scheme,” they wrote, “an immense wall along our border simply cannot be constructed without funds appropriated by Congress for that purpose.” |