Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Jon Parton, CNS, June 28, 2019
"A federal judge in California ruled Friday against the Trump administration in two different lawsuits over the use of $2.5 billion in military funding to build part of a southern border wall.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam from the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, approved a temporary injunction blocking the feds from building sections of the wall in California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. Friday’s rulings made the injunction permanent.
President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the border in February after Congress failed to allocate funding to his border wall. Using the declaration, Trump planned to divert money from the military to begin construction of the wall.
Gilliam wrote that Trump’s diversion of military funding was an unlawful action that attempted to bypass the authority of Congress.
“Defendants’ position on these factors boils down to an argument that the Court should not enjoin conduct found to be unlawful because the ends justify the mean,” Gilliam wrote in the case brought by the states. “No case supports this principle.”
The first lawsuit was brought by California on behalf of 20 other states. The second lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Southern Border Communities Coalition and the Sierra Club.
In the second lawsuit, Gilliam said members of the environmental rights groups would “suffer irreparable harm” if the border wall construction was allowed to begin.
“Congress considered all of Defendants’ proffered needs for border barrier construction, weighed the public interest in such construction against Defendants’ request for taxpayer money, and struck what it considered to be the proper balance — in the public’s interest — by making available only $1.375 billion in funding, which was for certain border barrier construction not at issue here,” Gilliam wrote."