When President Donald Trump declared a national emergency in February and used executive powers to shift previously appropriated funds toward construction of the border wall, incensed House Democrats filed a lawsuit to challenge that move.
Unfortunately for them, a federal district judge just ruled that the House has no standing to sue to stop the president’s border wall funding transfers, declared an unwillingness to take a side in the “political fight,” and dismissed the case altogether.
Dem opposition to funding shift
In the aftermath of the lengthy government shutdown and standoff over the appropriation of border wall construction funds, President Trump used his executive authority to sidestep Congress by declaring a national emergency.
That declaration allowed President Trump to shift upwards of $6 billion from the Treasury’s asset forfeiture fund and the Defense Department’s counter-narcotics and military construction funds to instead be spent on border wall construction.
House Democrats sued to block the shifting of Defense funds and claimed that Trump had violated statutes on administrative procedures and appropriations in such a way as to cause “institutional harm” to the legislative branch.
Remedies not exhausted
But U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden viewed things differently, and ultimately ruled against the House by declining to pick a side in its fight against the executive branch.
In his 24-page ruling, McFadden focused on the separation of powers doctrine and past instances of lawsuits by the legislative versus executive branch.
He determined that Congress does enjoy the limited right to sue the executive when all other remedies to settle a political dispute have been exhausted or nullified — which hasn’t been the case in this instance.
Lack of standing
The judge noted that Congress could override Trump’s veto of its resolution against his declaration, could hold investigatory oversight hearings on the matter, or even write new legislation specifically prohibiting what Trump did, and wrote, “The availability of these institutional remedies shows that there is no ‘complete nullification’ of the House’s power.”
“Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power,” McFadden explained. “These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House. And this fact is also exemplified by the many other cases across the country challenging the administration’s planned construction of the border wall.”
Thus, in light of the fact that Congress still had “political arrows in its quiver,” not to mention the judiciary’s independent position and lack of prior precedents in similar disputes, the judge ruled that the House lacked proper standing to sue and dismissed the case without picking a side or weighing in on its actual merits.
This is a significant victory for the Trump administration, and while there remain other lawsuits seeking to block construction of the border wall, the administration is at least done battling Congress in court on this particular question.
No comments: