Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(128,748 posts)
Mon Jun 3, 2019, 06:40 PM Jun 2019

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 Trump’s 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 Congress’s legislative authority,” McFadden wrote in a 24-page decision, continuing, “The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s 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 House’s 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 Congress’s legislative authority,” McFadden, a 2017 Trump appointee, wrote in a 24-page decision, continuing, “The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s claims and will deny its motion.”

McFadden’s 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. McFadden’s 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 -

Judge rejects House suit challenging Trump’s border wall, ruling one chamber of Congress cannot sue executive branch over spending

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
27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge rejects House suit to block transfer of billions of dollars for Trump border wall (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Jun 2019 OP
Who, then, DOES have legal standing to sue? no_hypocrisy Jun 2019 #1
This may end up getting overturned on appeal BumRushDaShow Jun 2019 #3
... and so should have the power to snap it shut on his sticky, stubby fingers. JudyM Jun 2019 #4
Basically. BumRushDaShow Jun 2019 #5
Not if it's appealed to Trump appointed judges. OliverQ Jun 2019 #10
The DC Court of Appeals is STILL 7-4 Democrats vs Republicans & headed by Merrick Garland. BumRushDaShow Jun 2019 #11
Thank you for the good news! onetexan Jun 2019 #13
Interestingly enough BumRushDaShow Jun 2019 #14
When Boehner and the Repubs sued to block certain ACA spending onenote Jun 2019 #8
Trump judge Sanity Claws Jun 2019 #2
Gosh what a SHOCK from a Trump appointee........ Bengus81 Jun 2019 #6
More to the point he is Federalist Society from 2003. Ford_Prefect Jun 2019 #7
So basically this Federalist Society POS thinks, the Constitution is toilet paper and should be used turbinetree Jun 2019 #12
His version of the Constitution does not include you or me Ford_Prefect Jun 2019 #16
Yepper spot on............................. turbinetree Jun 2019 #20
Thought the GOP House sued President Obama to stop sinkingfeeling Jun 2019 #9
They did. And Obama unsuccessfully argued they lacked standing onenote Jun 2019 #17
Congress doesn't have standing? Hahahahahaha. This guy's stupider than tRump ... no wonder tRump KPN Jun 2019 #15
The Obama administration made the same no standing argument onenote Jun 2019 #18
No standing on using funds appropriated by Congress for KPN Jun 2019 #19
Correct. onenote Jun 2019 #21
So Congress has standing. Which is why I called KPN Jun 2019 #22
So was Obama an idiot for arguing the other way? onenote Jun 2019 #23
I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. KPN Jun 2019 #24
I thought Congress needed to approve spending? Linda Ed Jun 2019 #25
Sounds like Congress needs to stop appropriating so much money in the first place then. Chin music Jun 2019 #26
It's another abuse of power -- add it to the articles of impeachment pat_k Jun 2019 #27

BumRushDaShow

(128,748 posts)
11. The DC Court of Appeals is STILL 7-4 Democrats vs Republicans & headed by Merrick Garland.
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 04:44 AM
Jun 2019

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)

BumRushDaShow

(128,748 posts)
14. Interestingly enough
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 10:27 AM
Jun 2019

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)
8. When Boehner and the Repubs sued to block certain ACA spending
Mon Jun 3, 2019, 08:01 PM
Jun 2019

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.

Ford_Prefect

(7,876 posts)
7. More to the point he is Federalist Society from 2003.
Mon Jun 3, 2019, 07:34 PM
Jun 2019

He proposes a division of power within the Federal government not supported by previous decisions or legal actions.

turbinetree

(24,688 posts)
12. So basically this Federalist Society POS thinks, the Constitution is toilet paper and should be used
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 10:02 AM
Jun 2019

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)
16. His version of the Constitution does not include you or me
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 11:48 AM
Jun 2019

nor anyone who is not close enough to his god.

onenote

(42,685 posts)
17. They did. And Obama unsuccessfully argued they lacked standing
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 01:06 PM
Jun 2019

So I guess one's position on standing depends on whether you are in or out of the White House.

KPN

(15,642 posts)
15. Congress doesn't have standing? Hahahahahaha. This guy's stupider than tRump ... no wonder tRump
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 10:42 AM
Jun 2019

appointed him.

onenote

(42,685 posts)
18. The Obama administration made the same no standing argument
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 01:07 PM
Jun 2019

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)
19. No standing on using funds appropriated by Congress for
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 02:28 PM
Jun 2019

another purpose? Congress has the responsibility and authority to allocate funding. The executive does not; it administers funds for the purposes they were allocated.

onenote

(42,685 posts)
21. Correct.
Tue Jun 4, 2019, 04:56 PM
Jun 2019

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)
22. So Congress has standing. Which is why I called
Wed Jun 5, 2019, 07:09 AM
Jun 2019

the idiot stupid. Any reasonable judge would view it this way.

onenote

(42,685 posts)
23. So was Obama an idiot for arguing the other way?
Wed Jun 5, 2019, 08:27 AM
Jun 2019

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)
24. I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.
Wed Jun 5, 2019, 08:40 AM
Jun 2019

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 don’t believe it’s a close call. At least not in any reasonable court. But ii’ll admit we may have moved into an era of partisan, activist courts like none i’ve seen in my lifetime.

Linda Ed

(493 posts)
25. I thought Congress needed to approve spending?
Wed Jun 5, 2019, 10:59 AM
Jun 2019

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)
26. Sounds like Congress needs to stop appropriating so much money in the first place then.
Wed Jun 5, 2019, 11:25 AM
Jun 2019

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)
27. It's another abuse of power -- add it to the articles of impeachment
Wed Jun 5, 2019, 07:27 PM
Jun 2019

Nobody can deny the House has the power to impeach.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge rejects House suit ...