Why I Think the House and Senate Rebuke of the Emergency Declaration Helps in Court
The House has already renounced the Trump's emergency declaration in a bi-partisan 245 to 187 vote. I suspect the Senate will do the same and the rebuke will be in the mid-50's and also bi-partisan.
Trump will surely veto the measure and neither branch will achieve the two thirds necessary to override.
But, in court, the rejection of Trump's emergency edict by both branches of the legislature which included members of both parties, will carry some weight. Since the wall funding was defeated in the legislature, it casts doubt on the edict by any thoughtful person. Even though, technically, the lack of an override does not nullify the emergency, the court should find that the sense of the Congress should prevail in a matter of funding. Any clear thinking, objective person must agree that you can't have an emergency, by definition, if a clear majority of both branches of the legislature publicly, and on the record, reject that notion.
"The intent of the 1974 law declaring emergencies was never intended to fund projects rejected by Congress in the first instance, only to be circumvented by an unconstitutional power grab by the executive. And the fact that it stands because the President, who originally declared an emergency, vetoes the intent of Congress, should not be the arbiter of the action because he is able to create a circumstance, through his veto power, that requires two thirds of both branches to object. An emergency, by definition, should be able to be recognized by a vast majority of any clear thinking adult. A hurricane or other natural catastrophe, a military invasion, a man made disaster; these are emergencies that can be agreed to nearly universally. But a presidential declaration of an emergency that a majority of both legislative branches believes is an unconstitutional ploy, in this court's opinion, is not an emergency at all and violates the original intent of law." (My summary of what I think the court will say).