Judge Rejects Democrats' Attempt to Block Border Wall

Last month, several House committees received favorable rulings from federal judges who assigned financial records to the Trump accounting firm and to Deutsche Bank and Capital One as part of the investigations conducted by the Democratic Party.

McFadden's decision to effectively kill the House's efforts to end the border wall comes as the White House and its critics disagree over immigration policy at the US-Mexico border. . A Californian judge overseeing a separate federal case suspended funding that was to go to the wall last month. Border communities and the Sierra Club will continue to challenge the constitutionality of Trump's funding of the Wall in this lawsuit.

At the same time, public attention has turned to overcrowding at border detention centers, while Trump has called for tougher restrictions.

The ruling will likely have no impact on other prosecutions brought by Democrats in the House or States against the Trump administration, nor on various legal efforts to block the construction of a border wall. It was specifically based on the idea of ​​standing – simply if the House could prove that it was prejudiced and could take legal action.

McFadden wrote that lawmakers have more options than the judicial system to fight the president's proposals.

"The congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power," he wrote. "These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House." And this fact is also illustrated by the many other cases across the country contesting the proposed construction of the border wall by the United States. administration."

He also said that the decision does not mean that Democrats must avoid challenging before the White House before the Court.

"This case raises an important question about the role that the judiciary should play in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the federal government.For clarity, the court does not imply that the Congress can never pursue justice the executive power to protect its powers, "he said. wrote.

Earlier this year, the Democratic-led House joined several organizations to take legal action against the president's national emergency declaration.

The lawsuit argues that Trump's choice of moving funds for the wall violated the Constitution's provision on credits, which gives Congress power over the designation of federal spending. He asks McFadden to block the money spent on the wall in addition to future transfers.

The lawsuit has received notable support from former members of Congress and former General Councils of the House on both sides of the aisle.

A bipartisan group of over 100 former members of the House signed an amicus brief in which it was written: "In our country, the executive branch has rarely launched such an attack on the exclusive legislative powers of Congress."

"If this Court does not act in such a way as to prevent the usurpation of congressional authority by the administration, the uncontrolled enlargement of the power of the executive to the costs Legislative power will threaten our democracy, "the statement said.

The Ministry of Justice praised the decision.

"The Court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives could not ask the courts to take sides in political disputes and could not use the federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it could not realize using the tools that the Constitution gives Congress, "said a spokesman for the ministry in a statement. declaration. "The department is eager to continue to defend the legal actions of the administration in the face of the crisis on the southern border."

This story has been updated.