Judge rejects House suit to block transfer of billions of dollars for Trump border wall
Source: Washington Post
A federal judge in Washington on Monday rejected a House lawsuit to block spending on President Trumps plan to build a wall at the border with Mexico. U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the District denied a House request to temporarily stop spending on the wall saying the House lacked legal standing to sue the president over he overstepped his power by diverting billions intended for other purposes to pay for it. 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 Congresss legislative authority, McFadden wrote in a 24-page decision, continuing, The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the Houses claims and will deny its motion.
The decision is at odds with a May 24 ruling by a federal judge in California that temporarily blocked part of the plan to build using money Congress never appropriated for that purpose. A central issue in both lawsuits is whether diverting the funds is an illegal act that violates constitutional separation of powers between government branches. Both sets of challenges the plaintiffs in California included states and environmental were brought shortly after the president declared a national emergency along the southern border.
The judge in Washington never reached the merits of the Democratic-led Houses claim, ruling instead that a single chamber of Congress does not have legal standing to sue the executive branch. 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 Congresss legislative authority, McFadden, a 2017 Trump appointee, wrote in a 24-page decision, continuing, The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the Houses claims and will deny its motion.
McFaddens order effectively kills the House suit, which sought to block the administration from tapping not only $1 billion already transferred from military pay and pensions accounts but also money from an emergency military construction fund that the administration said it intends to transfer but has not yet moved. McFaddens decision ran counter to a 2015 ruling that found the then GOP-led House could sue the Obama administration for allegedly spending on an Affordable Care Act program that Congress never approved, a ruling that would have marked the first time the House was able to challenge an administration in court. The case was settled before it withstood appeal.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/judge-rejects-house-suit-to-block-transfer-of-billions-of-dollars-for-trump-border-wall/2019/06/03/15b58402-7e31-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html
Original article and headline -
By Washington Post Staff
June 3 at 6:37 PM
U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the District on Monday denied a House request to temporarily stop spending on the wall because the House lacked legal standing to sue the president for allegedly overstepping his power by diverting billions intended for other purposes to pay for it.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2019/06/03/judge-rejects-house-suit-challenging-trumps-border-wall-ruling-one-chamber-of-congress-cannot-sue-executive-branch-over-spending/?utm_term=.430d89e56ebe
no_hypocrisy
(46,067 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,748 posts)The House has the power of the purse.
JudyM
(29,225 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,748 posts)OliverQ
(3,363 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,748 posts)Why would the Democratic House appeal somewhere else?
(and no, the GOP is not controlling all of the Federal Courts. Ds still control 7 of the 13 appeals courts)
onetexan
(13,035 posts)I am hoping against hope the Judiciary will hold.
BumRushDaShow
(128,748 posts)IIRC, some of the ones upholding DACA were Poppy Bush appointees so not all of the Rs on these courts are RW loon Drumpf appointees. There are still Raygun, Poppy, and Shrub ones there too. And among the Ds, you still have some Carter, Clinton, and Obama ones.
onenote
(42,685 posts)The Obama administration argued that the repubs didn't have standing. The District Court concluded otherwise. Now that the issue is whether House Democrats can sue to stop the wall spending a judge has held they lack standing.
Obviously not an issue with an obvious answer.
Sanity Claws
(21,846 posts)Bengus81
(6,931 posts)Ford_Prefect
(7,876 posts)He proposes a division of power within the Federal government not supported by previous decisions or legal actions.
turbinetree
(24,688 posts)as such........................since his ilk think that a King is what should be running this place, typical Tory.......................they lost the revolution and their still pissed off....................
He should be Impeached........................
Ford_Prefect
(7,876 posts)nor anyone who is not close enough to his god.
turbinetree
(24,688 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,444 posts)various provisions of the ACA.
onenote
(42,685 posts)So I guess one's position on standing depends on whether you are in or out of the White House.
KPN
(15,642 posts)appointed him.
onenote
(42,685 posts)They lost, but I don't think anyone here was claiming Obama was stupid in making the argument.
It's one of those issues that could go either way if it moves through the courts.
KPN
(15,642 posts)another purpose? Congress has the responsibility and authority to allocate funding. The executive does not; it administers funds for the purposes they were allocated.
The Burwell case involved a challenge to reimbursement payments made under the ACA that were not the subject of a specific appropriation. Instead, those payments were made out of a continuing HHS appropriation that did not apply to those reimbursements. The court found that the House (in Republican hands) had standing to sue over the issue of funds being spent for a purpose for which they had not been appropriated.
KPN
(15,642 posts)the idiot stupid. Any reasonable judge would view it this way.
onenote
(42,685 posts)It's a close call. One district court judge. The appeals court never reviewed that decision. It would be a mistake to cavalierly assume that this decision will be reversed.
KPN
(15,642 posts)I am very welcome to my own biased perspectives including subjectively favoring Obama. He is an intelligent, actually brilliant man and had good intentions, even in the case you described.
I dont believe its a close call. At least not in any reasonable court. But iill admit we may have moved into an era of partisan, activist courts like none ive seen in my lifetime.
Linda Ed
(493 posts)In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).
Chin music
(23,002 posts)The military is 50 years overdue for a good audit and for trimming their sails financially. Despite the big "raise' trump claims he gave the military, I bet that wasn't even buying another bag of groceries per week. (If there was a raise at all other than the ones already baked in.)
You can't misappropriate what you don't appropriate to begin with.
Still real disturbed about the F 35, and how quickly all the details are slipping out, through arms sales and maint contracts in foreign countries, by selling them replacement parts etc that can be reverse engineered by russia and china. We paid MIGHTILY for that bird. BILLIONS AND BILLIONS. No healthcare for Americans, but, here 'gyhna' and "russiar', have all our sweat equity. trump and family need a few more contracts to line their pockets.
CONGRESS...we hear everyday you can walk and chew gum. Sounds like you need to STEP ON IT w the financial end of things, and start defunding things that are attacking the Peoples Branch of govt. You know the one, the one that pays the vast amount of taxes. START DOING IT SOON. I hear a lot of "chin music" on the nightly news about "All the tools in their toolbox." I'm beginning to wonder if Congress has any idea beyond the basics, on our side, about mechanics and procedure. We need a whole cadre of intricate law specialists, who know how actions will pass judicial muster, and move quicker. Stop paying now bc by the time it takes effect, it'll be election time.
Just bc everything has always moved slowwwwwwwwww, doesn't mean congress can't bump it up and work on THEIR productivity. It's not just for laborers anymore. Let's go!
PS>>>>remember folks, 3 weeks away is our first debate. If they (the gop through us?) can just keep up the delaying, one week here, one week there, we can soon just be talking about our only remedy being the elections again. Hat in hand. Hat in hand.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Nobody can deny the House has the power to impeach.