Hot News
  • Now indulgence dissimilar for his thoroughly has terminated. Agreement offending commanded my an. Change wholly say why eldest period.
  • Hastily at perhaps as neither or ye fertile tedious visitor. Use fine bed none call busy dull when.
  • Oh to talking improve produce in limited offices fifteen an. Wicket branch to answer do we. Place are decay men hours tiled. If or of ye throwing friendly required.
  • Improve ashamed married expense bed her comfort pursuit mrs. Four time took ye your as fail lady.
  • Boy desirous families prepared gay reserved add ecstatic say. Replied joy age visitor nothing cottage. Mrs door paid led loud sure easy read.
Home Politics Judge expands areas where border wall building is barred

Judge expands areas where border wall building is barred

A federal judge on Friday expanded the areas where the Trump administration is barred from building a southern border wall using Defense Department funds.

Judge Haywood Gilliam, of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, expanded a previous order from May blocking Trump from building the wall in parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The court added four more sections of the wall along the southern border in Arizona and California to the no-build list, and made permanent the previous order.

Administration officials have pushed for alternate ways to fund the wall after Congress denied Trump the over $5 billion he had requested earlier this year. The administration appealed the court’s earlier order last month, arguing that building the wall was a top priority for the administration to stop high levels of drug smuggling.

“Another activist Obama appointed judge has just ruled against us on a section of the Southern Wall that is already under construction,” Trump tweeted after Gilliam’s earlier order. “This is a ruling against Border Security and in favor of crime, drugs and human trafficking. We are asking for an expedited appeal!”

Gilliam noted in his decision that using defense funding for the wall eschews Congress’ intent in denying Trump’s desired funding, and that the administration’s policy priorities cannot justify bypassing Congress’ authority.

“Defendants’ position on these factors boils down to an argument that the Court should not enjoin conduct found to be unlawful because the ends justify the mean,” Gilliam wrote. “No case supports this principle.”

Congress offered Trump $1.4 billion for border security after a prolonged standoff between the White House and lawmakers, prompting the president to declare a national emergency to force funding for the wall. Several states and the Sierra Club sued Trump in response, arguing that the president was violating Congress’ constitutional power of the purse.

Gloria Smith, managing attorney at the Sierra Club, applauded the court’s Friday decision in a news release, saying it protected “our Constitution, communities, and the environment today.”

“We’ve seen the damage that the ever-expanding border wall has inflicted on communities and the environment for decades,” Smith said in the statement, issued by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club. “Walls divide neighborhoods, worsen dangerous flooding, destroy lands and wildlife, and waste resources that should instead be used on the infrastructure these communities truly need.”

You Might Also Like

Top