General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion for our Legalists about SCotUS: How did this ruling about the wall happen today?!
First of all, I thought they were on the summer vacay, didn't the last rulings happen in June?
2- Was this case heard in the regular session and then a ruling happening?
3- This thing about "not having standing" seems to illiterate-me to be a frequent cop-out, letting the status quo stand while not settling the core problem. So half of everybody is elated over the ruling and the other half is deflated, yet the issue is still there.
*********My prime issues are whether the SCotUS is in or out of session, whether this case has gone through the yearly cycle, or how did it pop up now?!1
********ON EDIT, might as well add some auxilliaries:
* Aux #1: How *dare* the SCotUS decide something like this without consulting me?!1
* Aux #2: How come something like this seems like lightning speed while things we need closure on hang fire forever?!1
elleng
(131,292 posts)'The Supreme Court on Friday gave President Trump a victory in his fight for a wall along the Mexican border by allowing the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction.
In a 5-to-4 ruling, the court overturned an appellate decision and said that the administration could tap the money while litigation over the matter proceeds. But that will most likely take many months or longer, allowing Mr. Trump to move ahead before the case returns to the Supreme Court after further proceedings in the appeals court.
While the order was only one paragraph long and unsigned, the Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration did not appear to have a legal right to do so. That was an indication that the courts conservative majority was likely to side with the administration in the end.
The courts four more liberal justices dissented. One of them, Stephen G. Breyer, wrote that he would have allowed the administration to pursue preparatory work but not construction, which he said would be hard to undo if the administration ultimately lost the case. . .
The border wall case, Trump v. Sierra Club, No. 19A60, concerned injunctions entered by a trial judge that blocked the transfer of military funds to wall construction. An appeals court refused to stay the trial judges ruling while it considered the administrations appeal. The Supreme Courts ruling on Friday allows construction to proceed while the litigation continues.
Dror Ladin, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups behind the legal challenge, said the ruling was a temporary setback.
We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trumps border wall, Mr. Ladin said. Border communities, the environment, and our Constitutions separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied.
Justice Breyer was the only member of the court to file an opinion. This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congresss appropriations power, he wrote. But the immediate issue for the court, he added, was merely whether to enter a stay of the trial courts injunction.
Allowing construction to start, Justice Breyer wrote, could cause irreparable harm to the challengers and to the environment. On the other hand, he wrote, the administration could lose access to the funds if it did not finalize contracts by the end of September. The solution, he wrote, would be to let the government negotiate and sign contracts, but not start building.
I would grant the governments application to stay the injunction only to the extent that the injunction prevents the government from finalizing the contracts or taking other preparatory administrative action, Justice Breyer wrote, but leave it in place insofar as it precludes the government from disbursing those funds or beginning construction. . .
Soon after, two advocacy groups represented by the A.C.L.U. the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition sued to stop Mr. Trumps 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.
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 branchs 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 Gilliams injunction while the court considered the governments appeal.
The public interest, the majority said, is best served by respecting the Constitutions assignment of the power of the purse to Congress, and by deferring to Congresss 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 governments efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/us/politics/supreme-court-border-wall-trump.html?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)to to the court at large. It's just a "stay" not a final decision of the constitutionality of an action.
(Justice Kagan is the "circuit judge" for the 9th circuit, see: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx )
Test of the order (.pdf): https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6219678/7-26-19-SCOTUS-Sierra-Club-Order.pdf
UTUSN
(70,779 posts)leftstreet
(36,118 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But I did recently read an article on the power Congress gave the president in the 70s with the Emergency Declaration act. And it is staggering.
I really think this could be changed in the near future. Especially with a Democratic President. Granted, I loved what Obama did thru Executive Action, but even his actions greatly exceeded what I think is healthy for the powers a president to have. So he did it for good. Put that same power can be used for horrible purposes as we now see.
I would like to see congress claw back that power give away. They could easily do it if the president would agree to sign it. Not sure any President would.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This was not a decision on the merits. This was simply a decision on whether to stay the lower court decision pending appeal.
Decisions on appeals of whether to stay orders are pretty quick.