Connect with us

Politics

Federal court to hear first legal challenge to Trump emergency declaration for border wall funds

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

SUBSCRIBE

By Pete Williams

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to divert billions of dollars from the Pentagon for a border wall faces its first courtroom test Friday in Oakland, California.

The Sierra Club and a group of southern U.S. communities are asking a federal judge to immediately block the plan. It was announced in February after Congress declined to approve the billions requested by the president. Federal District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam holds a hearing Friday morning on their request for an nationwide order to stop the construction.

Operating under its emergency declaration, the administration put together a plan for spending about $6 billion dollars, mostly from the Pentagon budget. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has told Congress the money would build 256 miles of border wall, with 63 of them completed by the end of the year.

The opponents, represented by the ACLU, say the president’s plan exceeds his powers, because he cannot spend more than Congress has authorized or use the money in a way that’s inconsistent with the purposes of appropriations already made. Their suit also says the emergency declaration law invoked by the president allows use of Pentagon construction funds only to support the military.

“There is no emergency requiring the use of the armed forces along the U.S.-Mexico border,” their lawsuit says, “and construction of a border wall is not necessary to support such use of the armed forces.” Besides, they say, a separate law passed by Congress allows the use of Defense Department support only for building facilities needed to block drug smuggling at the border.

The Sierra Club further says the wall would cause irreversible environmental damage. “Endangered species could disappear from our southern border, while fragile landscapes are decimated by this destructive and pointless vanity project,” says Gloria Smith, the group’s managing attorney.

In court filings defending the plan, the Justice Department says federal law gives the president wide latitude in deciding when to declare a national emergency. “The statutory scheme leaves to the president the determination of whether a national emergency requires the use of the armed forces,” government lawyers say. Courts have no authority to second-guess such a declaration, they argue.

As for whether the president is spending money beyond his authority, the government notes that Congress has already approved $1.375 for border wall construction. And the government says any dispute on this question is between Congress and the White House, so outside parties like the Sierra Club have no legal right to bring this challenge.

Supported by its Democratic majority, the House of Representatives has separately filed a lawsuit of its own to challenge the border wall emergency declaration, which faces a dozen lawsuits in three separate federal courts. The Sierra Club’s request for a nationwide injunction to stop the work is the first to be heard by a judge.

Shortly after declaring a national emergency, Trump predicted that he would not fare well in the cases filed in California. “They will sue us in the 9th Circuit,” he said. “We will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we’ll get another bad ruling, and then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

European elections vote: Why should YOU vote in the European Elections?

Published

on

EUROPEAN Parliament elections are coming up next week, and the UK is definitely taking part. So why vote?

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Missouri Senate passes bill to outlaw abortion at 8 weeks

Published

on

Breaking News Emails

Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

SUBSCRIBE

By Patrick Smith and Associated Press

Missouri’s Senate has passed what its authors call one of the nation’s most stringent anti-abortion bills, which would outlaw nearly all abortions at eight weeks of pregnancy.

The Republican-led Senate passed the bill, dubbed Missouri Stands With the Unborn, 24-10 early Thursday morning.

In a statement, state Sens. Dave Schatz and Caleb Rowden said: “Today the Missouri Senate passed one of the most pro-life bills in the United States: Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act.

“This comprehensive, life-affirming legislation prohibits abortions once a heartbeat has been detected, prohibits abortions when a baby is capable of feeling pain, and would outlaw abortion in Missouri upon the reversal of Roe v. Wade.”

It was passed just hours left before lawmakers’ Friday deadline to pass bills. It still needs at least another vote of approval in the Missouri House before it can go to Gov. Mike Parson, who is Republican and supports it.

The law allows exceptions to the abortion ban in cases of medical emergency but not in cases of rape or incest.

Missouri’s move comes hours after Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill that would introduce a near-total abortion ban in the state. Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia have approved bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy.

Louisiana is following suit with its own “heartbeat” abortion ban, which was approved unopposed by the Louisiana House Health and Welfare Committee on Wednesday.

Anti-abortion campaigners across the U.S. are pushing for new restrictions in hopes that the now more-conservative U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending