RSN Fundraising Banner
Supreme Court Allows Trump to Use $2.5 Billion in Pentagon Funds for Border Wall
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5082"><span class="small">Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress</span></a>   
Saturday, 27 July 2019 08:20

Millhiser writes: "The Supreme Court handed down a Friday evening order effectively permitting President Trump to reappropriate $2.5 billion dollars from a pool of money intended to support anti-drug activities to construction of a Mexican border wall. The case is Trump v. Sierra Club."

Migrants, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America trying to reach the United States, climb down a steep hill near the border wall into the U.S. from Tijuana, Mexico. (photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)
Migrants, part of a caravan of thousands from Central America trying to reach the United States, climb down a steep hill near the border wall into the U.S. from Tijuana, Mexico. (photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)


Supreme Court Allows Trump to Use $2.5 Billion in Pentagon Funds for Border Wall

By Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress

27 July 19


Trump's fellow partisans come through for him again.

he Supreme Court handed down a Friday evening order effectively permitting President Trump to reappropriate $2.5 billion dollars from a pool of money intended to support anti-drug activities to construction of a Mexican border wall. The case is Trump v. Sierra Club.

Last May, a federal court blocked this transfer of funds, noting that a federal law which sometimes permits the executive to reallocate such funds applies only to “unforeseen military requirements.” Whatever else may be said of the merits of building a border wall, the alleged need for it is not “unforeseen,” as Trump’s been talking about building such a wall for years.

The Supreme Court’s order on behalf of its five Republican members is brief, and does not reach the merits of whether Trump acted lawfully. Instead, it stays the lower court opinion, holding that “the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005.” That is, these particular plaintiffs likely do not have the right to challenge this particular transfer of funds.

The court’s four Democratic appointees all joined an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, which expresses no view on whether these plaintiffs can sue. Instead, Breyer writes that the appropriate course would be to issue a partial stay that allows the government to seek contractors to build the wall, but that prevents funding from being distributed until the courts have more time to consider the case.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+2 # elizabethblock 2019-07-27 10:44
Does this mean there will be less money for starting wars on other countries?
 
 
+1 # chapdrum 2019-07-27 12:22
In addition to all of the misery he wreaks every day of his life, he has placed TWO Supreme Court justices in two years.
Now THAT is what you call "Mission Accomplished."
 
 
+2 # lfeuille 2019-07-27 13:33
Speaking of Impeachment (which we were recently in the Reich piece), one of those justices should be impeached in 2021 if we succeed in regaining the presidency and the senate. He lied in his confirmation hearings.
 
 
+1 # economagic 2019-07-27 18:59
Unfortunately so did three others who promised to honor "Stare Decisis" and other traditions of the Court.
 
 
-1 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-07-27 12:38
I think this was pretty easy to see coming. And just think, last fall Pelosi and Feinstein could have had a deal that would have given the DACA recipients a direct line to citizenship in exchange for the wall. Now they have the effing wall and no citizenship for DACA recipients. In fact, Trump is going to cancel their DACA rights and they may be deported.

I wrote back then that democrats should have taken the deal for DACA recipients and bit the bullet of the wall. Now they lost on both fronts. We all know how Pentagon money is spent. Congress allocated $2.5 billion but it ends up being $10 billion.

The American system of politics, as crappy as it is, always requires compromise. In order to get A, you have to give your opponent B. There are certainly some issues that no one should compromise on. But this one would have been OK. Building a wall is a waste of money, has terrible optics, and won't work anyway. But it is no worse than the idiotic "war on drugs" and hundreds of other boondoggles.