News

Immigration

SCOTUS Sides with Trump in Border Wall Dispute

President Donald Trump at the U.S.-Mexico border in Calexico, Calif., April 5, 2019 (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump acted within his authority when he unilaterally appropriated $2.5 billion in military funds to build 100 miles of his long-promised border wall.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices reversed a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that barred the administration from accessing the funding. Trump’s attorneys immediately appealed to the High Court, citing the September 30 deadline by which the administration must either spend the money or forfeit it due to the close of the fiscal year.

The court’s conservative justices sided firmly with the administration while liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kegan fully dissented, leaving Justice Stephen Breyer to suggest a compromise in a partial dissent.

Lower courts have ruled that the move encroaches on the Congressional power to allocate funding.

“The Constitution assigns to Congress the power of the purse,” the 9th Circuit said in July while upholding a lower court’s ruling. “It is Congress that is to make decisions regarding how to spend taxpayer dollars.”

President Trump declared a national emergency to appropriate the funds in February after congressional Democrats ensured that a pending spending bill did not allocate the funding demanded for the wall’s construction.

The resulting order reallocated $600 billion from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund; $3.6 billion from the military construction budget; and $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense drug seizure program.

The High Court’s Friday decision came in response to a challenge issued by a collection of environmentalist organizations led by the Sierra Club. The groups specifically objected to the administration’s use of seized narcotic funds to build 100 miles of fencing along the border in Arizona, New Mexico, and California, arguing that the barrier would interfere in recreational activities like “hiking, birdwatching, [and] photography.”

Attorneys representing the administration argued that the environmental groups’ recreational concerns are outweighed by the state’s interest in addressing the humanitarian cost associated with the smuggling of narcotics across the border.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

O’Rourke’s America

With apologies to Margaret Atwood and a thousand other dystopian novelists, we do not have to theorize about what an American police state would look like, because we know what it looks like: the airport, that familiar totalitarian environment where Americans are disarmed, stripped of their privacy, divested of ... Read More
World

Is America Becoming Sinicized?

A little over 40 years ago, Chinese Communist strongman and reformer Deng Xiaoping began 15 years of sweeping economic reforms. They were designed to end the disastrous, even murderous planned economy of Mao Zedong, who died in 1976. The results of Deng’s revolution astonished the world. In four decades, ... Read More
Sports

LeBron James Looks Like a Fraud

So, LeBron James claimed that Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey was simply “misinformed or not really educated on the situation” when he tweeted his support for pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. “I don’t want to get into a feud with Daryl Morey, but I believe he wasn’t educated on the situation at ... Read More
World

Kurdish, Syrian, and Turkish Ironies

Outrage met Donald Trump’s supposedly rash decision to pull back U.S. troops from possible confrontational zones between our Kurdish friends in Syria and Recep Erdogan’s expeditionary forces. Turkey claims that it will punish the Syrian Kurds for a variety of supposed provocations, including aiding and ... Read More