WASHINGTON D.C. – A federal district judge heard arguments Monday morning on why two lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s use of non-Congressional funds for a border wall should move forward in the judicial process.
Judge Trevor Neil McFadden spent three hours in a D.C. courtroom with attorneys from the Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration, and attorneys from Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity, who are representing different plaintiffs in two separate lawsuits.
The briefing – the first such hearing for these federal lawsuits – was for the judge to hear arguments as he determines whether the plaintiffs have a feasible path to win in the courts.
One question was whether the courts have the authority to pass judgment on the president’s actions. Another focused on the actual constitutionality of military accounts being drained to build the border wall; and another question addressed whether the plaintiffs had a right to appear in court to challenge the president’s actions.
No decisions were made, and the judge asked for more briefings to be filed in January.
Sarah Burt, lead attorney for Earthjustice, argued that the president’s national emergency declaration was based on a political campaign promise, and circumvents Congress’ power of the purse in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Burt closed by stating that any actions taken by the Trump administration carry “real world” consequences for those who live and work on the border.
The two lawsuits – Rio Grande International Study Center et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, and Center for Biological Diversity et al vs. Donald J. Trump et al – were filed after Trump’s Feb. 15 declaration of a national emergency.
He issued the declaration immediately after Congress refused to fulfill his demand to fund the entirety of the border wall. Congress instead agreed to $1.375 billion earlier this year in a compromise bill that ended an historic 35-day government shutdown earlier this year, the longest in government history, due to a political impasse over wall funding.
Plaintiffs in attendance at the D.C. hearing included: Laredo area riverfront landowners Joseph Hein and Elsa Hull; Tricia Cortez, executive director of the Rio Grande International Study Center, a Laredo-based environmental nonprofit; and Ramiro and Melinda Ramirez who are Jackson family descendants trying to protect historical cemeteries in the lower Rio Grande Valley.
“It’s really important that we were able to come up here and put a face on those of us who will actually be living with consequences of these decisions that are being made in Washington D.C.,” said Hull, who lives along the river in Zapata County. “Yes, we’re real people, and we stand to be impacted in such a horrible way.”
Raul E. Garcia, Earthjustice legislative director, said that he remains “hopeful that the judge will recognize the importance of his decision to the rule of law, our democracy, and the Constitution, but more importantly, that the burden of the president’s wall will rest with real communities that will be living with the harms for decades to come. If the judicial system does not protect them, our democracy can crumble.”
Last week, in an attempt to avoid another prolonged government shutdown, Congress struck another compromise and agreed to a new round of $1.375 billion for wall construction, short of the $8.6 billion requested by the president.
