Judge blocks Trump from building sections of border wall | TribLIVE.com
Politics Election

Judge blocks Trump from building sections of border wall

Associated Press
1209304_web1_1209304-5dddd1daed634f10a642859c5475c733
FILE - In this Friday April 5, 2019, file photo, President Donald Trump speaks as he visits a new section of the border wall with Mexico in Calexico, Calif. A federal judge in California has blocked Trump from building sections of his long-sought border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. on Friday, May 24, 2019, immediately halted the administration’s efforts to redirect military-designated funds to build sections of wall on the Mexican border. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)
1209304_web1_1209304-8c030ff7a81d47718017623893bbf372
FILE - In this March 13, 2018, file photo, President Donald Trump holds a poster with photographs of the U.S. - Mexico border area as he reviews border wall prototypes in San Diego with Rodney Scott, the U.S. Border Patrol’s San Diego sector chief. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. has blocked President Donald Trump from building sections of his long-sought border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency, Friday, May 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
1209304_web1_1209304-72b448a0c5fe42b09a55b3c4df882507
FILE - In this Feb. 27, 2019, file photo, a border wall prototype falls during demolition at the border between Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego. The government is demolishing eight prototypes of Donald Trump’s prized border wall that instantly became powerful symbols of his presidency when they were built nine months after he took office. U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. has blocked President Donald Trump from building sections of his long-sought border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency, Friday, May 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)
1209304_web1_1209304-8ff57dc26246490dab12c780c06838ff
FILE - In this Jan. 3, 2019, file photo, a migrant from Honduras passes a child to her father after he jumped the border wall to get into the U.S. side to San Diego, Calif., from Tijuana, Mexico. A federal judge is expected to decide Friday, May 24 whether to block the White House from spending billions of dollars to build a wall on the Mexican border with money secured under President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. (AP Photo/Daniel Ochoa de Olza, File)
1209304_web1_1209304-aca34b9e740d47109aeadb8978d77059
FILE - In this Nov. 21, 2018, file photo, two Honduran men pose as a photographer, at left, takes their picture after the group climbed the border wall separating Tijuana, Mexico, and San Diego, before climbing back down on the Mexican side, seen from San Diego. A federal judge is expected to decide Friday, May 24, 2019, whether to block the White House from spending billions of dollars to build a wall on the Mexican border with money secured under President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)
1209304_web1_1209304-7883d0c6b925494a993d7d3f68f381ad
FILE - In this March 11, 2019, file photo, construction crews replace a section of the primary wall separating San Diego, above right, and Tijuana, Mexico, below left, seen from Tijuana, Mexico. President Donald Trump is reviving his border wall fight, preparing a new budget that will seek $8.6 billion for the U.S-Mexico barrier while imposing steep spending cuts to other domestic programs and setting the stage for another fiscal battle. A federal judge is expected to decide Friday, May 24, 2019, whether to block the White House from spending billions of dollars to build a wall on the Mexican border with money secured under President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge blocked on Friday President Donald Trump from building sections of his long-sought border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr., on Friday immediately halted the administration’s efforts to redirect military-designated funds for wall construction. His order applies to two high-priority projects to replace 51 miles (82 kilometers) of fence in two areas on the Mexican border.

Gilliam issued the ruling after hearing arguments last week in two cases. California and 19 other states brought one lawsuit; the Sierra Club and a coalition of communities along the border brought the other. His ruling was the first of several lawsuits against Trump’s controversial decision to bypass the normal appropriations process to pay for his long-sought wall.

Gilliam, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on arguments that the president was wrongly ignoring Congress’ wishes.

“Congress’s ‘absolute’ control over federal expenditures—even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important—is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one,” he wrote in his 56-page opinion.

A judge in Washington, D.C., is hearing a similar challenge brought by the U.S. House of Representatives that argued the money shifting violates the constitution. The judge was weighing whether the lawmakers even had the ability to sue the president instead of working through political routes to resolve the bitter dispute.

At stake is billions of dollars that would allow Trump to make progress in a signature campaign promise heading into his campaign for a second term.

Trump declared a national emergency in February after losing a fight with the Democratic-led House over fully paying for the wall that led to a 35-day government shutdown. As a compromise on border and immigration enforcement, Congress set aside $1.375 billion to extend or replace existing barriers in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings.

Trump grudgingly accepted the money, but then declared the national emergency to siphon money from other government accounts because he wanted to spend $8 billion on wall construction. The funds include $3.6 billion from military construction funds, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counterdrug activities and $600 million from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund.

The president’s adversaries say the emergency declaration was an illegal attempt to ignore Congress, which authorized far less wall spending than Trump wanted.

“We welcome the court’s decision to block Trump’s attempts to sidestep Congress to build deadly walls that would hurt communities living at the border, endanger wildlife, and have damaging impacts on the environment,” said Andrea Guerrero, a member of the Southern Border Communities Coalition.

The administration said Trump was protecting national security as unprecedented numbers of Central American asylum-seeking families arrive at the U.S. border.

It wasn’t a total defeat for the administration.

Gilliam rejected a request by the 20 states to block use of Treasury asset forfeiture funds for border wall construction. The states argued that Trump skirted environmental impact reviews but the judge said they were unlikely to prevail on that point.

The administration has said it plans to use the Treasury money to extend barriers in the Rio Grande Valley.

The courtroom showdowns come amid a flurry of activity to accelerate wall construction.

The preliminary injunction applies to the two highest-priority Pentagon-funded wall contracts.

The Defense Department has transferred $2.5 billion to border wall coffers.

The Defense Department transferred $1 billion to border wall coffers in March and another $1.5 billion earlier this month. Patrick Shanahan, the acting defense secretary, is expected to decide soon whether to transfer an additional $3.6 billion.

The Army Corps of Engineers recently announced several large contacts with Pentagon funding. Last month, SLSCO Ltd. of Galveston, Texas, won a $789 million award to replace 46 miles (74 kilometers) of barrier in New Mexico.

Last week, Southwest Valley Constructors of Albuquerque, New Mexico, won a $646 million award to replace 63 miles (101 kilometers) in the Border Patrol’s Tucson, Arizona, sector. Barnard Construction Co. of Bozeman, Montana, won a $141.8 million contract to replace 5 miles (8 kilometers) in Yuma and 15 miles (24 kilometers) in El Centro, California.

Aside from California, states participating in the legal challenge are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Categories: News | Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.