Ruling will ‘really accelerate’ wall progress, DHS chief Kevin McAleenan says | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Ruling will ‘really accelerate’ wall progress, DHS chief Kevin McAleenan says

1469747_web1_AP19207825601598
AP
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle sits near the wall as President Donald Trump visits a new section of the border wall with Mexico in El Centro, Calif. The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

WASHINGTON — The ruling that cleared Donald Trump’s administration to start using disputed Pentagon funds for fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border will “really accelerate” progress on the president’s wall project, the top Department of Homeland Security official said.

Meanwhile, segments that have already been built are “providing significant new operational capability and helping us control some high-traffic areas of the border,” acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”

A divided Supreme Court late Friday said Trump could start using $2.5 billion to construct more than 100 miles of fencing, the biggest step yet for the border wall Trump has promised since campaigning for president in 2016.

The justices lifted a lower court freeze that was designed to block the spending while a lawsuit by the Sierra Club and another advocacy group went forward. The court’s four liberal justices said they would have kept construction on hold.

Those funds will “kind of double what we’re doing with the congressionally appropriated funding, which is going well,” McAleenan said. About 54 miles of wall had already been built, he said.

‘Big victory’

McAleenan said that although the court’s ruling was “a big victory” to build more of the wall, “we do remain in the midst of a border security crisis” with migrants flooding the region and that Congress must take more action to deter crossings.

“We made very clear the targeted changes in law that we need,” McAleenan said.

Friday’s order marked the first time the Supreme Court has acted in the dispute over the national-emergency declaration Trump issued in February in a bid to free up federal money for the wall.

“Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall,” Trump tweeted Friday. “Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”

The wall segments in Arizona, New Mexico and California would give Trump a tangible achievement to tout in his re-election campaign. Until now, congressional and court resistance had thwarted significant progress toward a stronger barrier on the almost 2,000-mile frontier.

During his campaign, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. On Saturday, he said the United States would be “fully reimbursed for this expenditure, over time, by other countries.” He didn’t say how.

The 30-foot steel bollard fencing would replace barriers that the Trump administration says are dilapidated and ineffective. Some of those existing barriers are designed only to prevent vehicles from crossing and don’t stop pedestrians.

While fact-checkers have pointed out that Trump’s assertions on Twitter and in other public comments that “we have already built large new sections” of wall aren’t accurate, he has insisted that renovations should count as new wall because it involves “complete demolition and rebuilding of old and worthless barriers.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, vowed to fight on.

“This is not over,” Dror Ladin, the ACLU’s lead lawyer in the case, said in a statement. “We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall.”

But the court’s unsigned order suggested the administration is likely to win the fight. The order said the administration “has made a sufficient showing at this stage” that the groups don’t have the legal right to challenge the Pentagon’s spending decisions.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, giving no explanation. Justice Stephen Breyer issued a partial dissent, saying he would have blocked construction while letting the government finalize its contracts.

Harm to environment

Breyer pointed to the trial judge’s conclusion that construction “would cause irreparable harm to the environment” and to the challengers.

A federal trial judge in Oakland, Calif., blocked the Defense Department from diverting $2.5 billion originally appropriated for other purposes. The Pentagon sought to transfer the money into its counter-narcotics fund, saying it would build barriers in stretches of the border used heavily by drug smugglers.

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court agreed that the spending should be halted while the litigation goes forward.

Trump declared the emergency after Congress approved only $1.4 billion of the $5.7 billion he sought for the wall this fiscal year. The House and Senate both voted to cancel Trump’s plan but weren’t able to override his veto.

The $2.5 billion is the first chunk of almost $7 billion in Pentagon and Treasury Department funds that the emergency declaration was designed to tap.

The ACLU said allowing the spending now would damage the environment, “dramatically upend the status quo” and let the administration “irretrievably commit taxpayer funds in contravention of Congress’ considered spending judgment.”

The groups said the administration is seeking to “construct a permanent wall this summer — before Congress has a chance to consider and pass another budget.”

Categories: News | World
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.