Judge Tosses House Lawsuit Over Border Wall Spending
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington on Monday threw out the House’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over funds to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, saying the courts were not the place to settle this dispute over congressional appropriations power.
The Democrat-led House filed the lawsuit challenging parts of the administration plan to spend up to $8.1 billion for construction of southern border barriers, arguing that Congress had turned aside President Donald Trump’s request for $5 billion and instead appropriated $1.375 billion.
The House argued that the spending would violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution and usurp Congress’ authority, while the Justice Department called it a case about whether the administration is not appropriately executing a statute.
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden didn’t get that far. He said the Trump administration correctly argued that the Constitution does not give the House the right to “conscript the Judiciary in a political turf war with the President over the implementation of legislation.”
Judicial independence requires that courts take no part in resolving political fights between other branches, McFadden wrote in a 24-page ruling that denied the House request for a preliminary injunction to stop the administration plan to move money for the barrier construction under other laws.
“And while the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority,” McFadden wrote.
His ruling called it a “close question,” but said there was a lack of prior decisions on the House’s right to sue the executive branch and the court “cannot assume jurisdiction to proceed to the merits.”
McFadden concluded that the House “retains the institutional tools necessary to remedy any harm caused to this power by the Administration’s actions.”
To that point, the judge pointed to congressional power to override a president’s veto of a resolution voiding the National Emergency Declaration, amend appropriations laws to expressly restrict the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall and hold hearings on the president’s spending decisions.
The House case is one of several challenging the administration plan, but it highlights the hurdles facing lawmakers who want to stop the actions through the courts. During a hearing on the injunction request last month, McFadden expressed skepticism about whether the federal courts should jump into the middle of an “ugly dispute between the political branches.”
The Justice Department had argued that the Constitution doesn’t hint at litigation between the branches because it gave them other ways to resolve disputes.
Congress gave the administration the authority to transfer money in two laws last fall — the fiscal 2019 defense authorization and Defense spending bills — and lawmakers could have restricted that authority then if they wanted, a DOJ lawyer argued.
A Justice Department spokesman said Monday that the judge had “rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress.”
A federal judge in California temporarily blocked portions of the administration spending plan for the border barrier.
©2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Visit CQ Roll Call at www.rollcall.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
In The News
WASHINGTON - While the Constitution does not expressly grant lifetime appointment for Supreme Court justices, it has, since the nation’s founding, been inferred from Article III, Section I, that “The Judges… shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” has meant career tenure. Today, due to advances... Read More
WASHINGTON - A District of Columbia judge’s ruling this week is the latest court judgment that absolves insurers from obligations to cover the losses of businesses during the coronavirus pandemic. A group of restaurants sued their insurer after the company declined to reimburse them under their... Read More
When President Donald Trump tweeted that the U.S. may need to delay the November election, the longest-serving member on the Federal Election Commission joined the chorus of voices pointing out that he does not have the authority to make that decision. “No, Mr. President. No,” Ellen... Read More
WASHINGTON -- Former Deputy U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates renewed suspicions of favoritism in Senate testimony Wednesday about the dropped charges against the Trump administration’s first national security advisor. She called the dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn for allegedly lying to the FBI “highly irregular.”... Read More
ATLANTA — Shortly after U.S. Rep. John Lewis died, grieving Democrats were faced with two difficult choices: tap a replacement for the late civil rights icon on the ballot within days or slow the process and risk a legal challenge. Democratic insiders decided to hold a... Read More
WASHINGTON - A federal judge’s recent ruling gave prosecutors nationwide a new tool for pursuing money launderers by redefining bitcoin as a form of currency. The ruling was based on the prosecution of a man who tried to evade criminal charges after he allegedly transferred more... Read More