[ad_1]
Amy Goldstein
Reporter covering health policy and other social policy issues
A coalition of 16 states began a federal lawsuit Monday to block President Trump's plan to build a border wall without congressional permission, saying the president's decision to declare a national emergency was unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, filed by states with Democratic governors – with the exception of only one, Maryland – is seeking a preliminary injunction preventing the president from acting in accordance with his statement of claim. emergency as long as the case is before the courts.
The complaint was filed in the San Francisco-based District Court of the Northern District of California, whose judges have ruled against many other Trump administration policies, particularly in the area of immigration and immigration. d & # 39; environment.
Accusing the president of an "unconstitutional and illegal ploy", the complaint indicates that states are trying to "protect their residents, their natural resources and their economic interests against the blatant disregard of President Donald J. Trump for the principles of separation fundamental powers rooted in the United States Constitution. "
The complaint, filed by attorneys general from nearly a third of the states and representing millions of Americans, immediately weighed heavily in the pit of a wave of opposition to the president's emergency declaration. On Friday, in the White House Rose Garden, Trump announced the establishment of a national emergency on the US-Mexico border because Congress had not provided enough money for the construction of a wall. who stood like one of the most enduring promises of its 2016 campaign.
The Justice Department did not want to comment on the trial Monday night.
Protesters at the demonstration at the White House organized by the American Civil Liberties Union. (Zach Gibson / Getty Images)
Several non-profit organizations have already filed a lawsuit or announced their intention to sue. And protesters took to the streets of several cities on Monday. In front of the White House, protesters brandished neon colored letters called "Power grab".
"You would not expect to celebrate Presidents' Day this way, but we are doing what you have to do," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said on Monday at the head of the government coalition. interview. "In this case, we must commemorate. . . by demonstrating, whether on the street or in court. "
As part of the declared emergency, White House officials plan to use $ 8 billion to build swathes of a barrier that, according to Trump, will prevent or deter migrants from penetrating in the country. That's about $ 6.6 billion more than Congress had planned for that. his last expenditure plan. To fill this gap, the White House intends to divert $ 3.6 billion from military construction accounts and $ 2.5 billion from the Department of Defense's efforts to fight illicit drugs.
In the 56-page complaint, Becerra and his counterparts argue that diverting money that Congress had designated for other purposes violated the separation of powers set out in the Constitution.
According to the complaint, once Congress passes the laws and the President signs them, the Constitution requires the president to "ensure that the laws are faithfully executed." Another provision of the Constitution, the note on the trial, prevents the payment of money by the US Treasury. unless Congress agrees.
The prosecution also states that "the federal government's data show that there is no national emergency on the southern border that can justify the construction of a wall. Customs and border data show that illegal entries are close to lows for 45 years. "
And it enumerates the means by which the misappropriation of money can harm the residents of the participating states – and the states themselves -. They include the loss of funding for military bases, the weakening of drug control efforts and the damage done to state economies.
In addition to California, states participating in the lawsuit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, the United States. New Mexico, Oregon and Virginia. With the exception of Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (right), state governors are Democrats.
The trial bears the name of defendant the president; the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Interior and Homeland Security; and the senior officials of these ministries.
In filing the case in the San Francisco-based northern district, the attorneys general chose a jurisdiction that has repeatedly conflicted with the president. According to a Washington Post count, court judges have ruled against the Trump government in at least nine important cases.
Judges in the region, for example, opposed the Commerce Department's efforts to add a citizenship issue to the 2020 census, the many regressions of environmental regulation, and efforts to reduce the right to asylum. for migrants and the revocation of special temporary protection status by the Department of Homeland Security for hundreds of thousands of immigrants legally living in the United States.
The cases appealed from this jurisdiction are brought before the US Court of Appeals of the 9th Circuit, which has become a very important position for Trump, who mocked as "a complete and total disaster" and "a thorn in our side."
Since the president's announcement, Republican members of Congress have mixed views on the statement. Some claim it is legitimate and others describe it as a takeover that could create a dangerous precedent in the case of a future Democratic president.
Congressional Democrats plan to vote in the coming weeks on a joint resolution that would cancel the national emergency and provide for some Republicans to support it.
[Trump’s border emergency drags the GOP into a risky fight ahead of 2020]
Trump said his statement was authorized by a 1976 law, the National Emergencies Act, and that this law had been used dozens of times. External analyzes, including those of the Brennan Center for Justice, have shown that virtually all of these emergencies involve sanctions against foreign governments and groups for reasons such as human rights violations, rather than spending money. money for conventions intended for other purposes.
President George W. Bush declared a national emergency shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, but the spending he allowed had not yet been designated by the Congress to be held. Other purposes.
Friday, Public Citizen and the Center for Biodiversity have tabled separate lawsuits in the District Court of Columbia, alleging that Trump's emergency declaration was unconstitutional.
Citizens for accountability and ethics in Washington, another pressure group sued Friday the Justice Department for failing to provide legal opinions, communications and other documents related to the President's decision declare a national emergency.
Fred Barbash, Devlin Barrett and Alex Horton contributed to this report.
Read more
White House defends Trump's declaration of urgency as political trials and battles multiply
"Finish this wall": Trump seeks to turn his failure into building the wall into a rallying cry for the campaign
How President Trump came to declare a national emergency to fund his border wall
[ad_2]
Source link