Justice lawyers say the House can not sue Trump for his emergency statement

Justice lawyers argued Thursday in a US court that the House lacked the ability to sue the administration that sought to block the Democrats' lawsuit to challenge President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, dined amidst tensions: The Hill Report Morning Report – Trump declares that no law will be passed until the end of Dems debates: Harris prepares a phase 2 while she's looking to rejuvenate her campaign. MOREThe use of military funds to build a border wall as part of its national emergency declaration.

The Democrat – controlled House has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration last month after the president declared a national emergency to allocate funds for the construction of a wall in the country. the southern border.

The prosecution does not dispute the national emergency itself, but rather the transfer of military funds towards the construction of a border wall.

House Democrats argued that only Congress had the constitutional power to allocate funds and that the use of money for military projects for the construction of a wall violated the separation of powers.

In the first 90 minutes of the hearing, which lasted about three hours, District Judge Trevor McFadden heard arguments from both sides as to whether the courts should even play a role in the fight between Congress and the administration on the financing of the wall.

James Burnham, deputy attorney at the Ministry of Justice, said that "the Constitution leaves no room for intersectoral litigation" and that for 200 years civil servants "have settled political disputes by political means".

When McFadden, who indicated throughout the proceedings that he was concerned that he should even decide on a dispute between the executive and the legislature, asked him if that meant that the House would never have the opportunity to sue the administration, Mr. Burnham replied: Yes. "

Douglas Letter, the Attorney General of the House, argued that the courts had every right to rule. He said that in the past, the Supreme Court had concluded that judges could "tell the other two branches what the Constitution meant".

"We can not have the president who has the money to protect the freedom of American people," he said.

When McFadden, appointed by Trump, asked the House whether she had exhausted all of her options to oppose the administration before filing the complaint, the lawyer responded by saying that she had not. yes.

He pointed out that House and Senate legislators refusing to include Trump's requested funding for border security in the supply bills as an implicit denial of funding for the construction of a border wall.

"We are in a situation where the House did what the political armaments had told it, not just the House, but the Congress," said Letter.

Congress also passed a resolution opposing Trump 's emergency declaration, but Burnham said the House' s argument was weakened by his inability to override Trump 's veto on this measure. .

"A lot of tools he could use" to stop the transfer of funds, said Burnham, "if that was strong enough".

Trump issued the emergency statement in January after accepting a funding bill ending a record 35 – day government closure not including the requested amount of border security funds.

During the second part of Thursday's hearing, Mr. McFadden heard arguments to determine whether or not he should issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily prevent military funds from moving toward the wall.

One letter stated that legislators were "irreparably hurt" because money could not be returned once spent.

Mr. Burnham acknowledged that the funds could not be returned, but he said that construction under the national emergency has not yet fully begun. And he added that the Department of Defense has not yet determined how to use the reprogrammed funds. An injunction is not necessary at the moment.

McFadden terminated the proceedings without ruling, stating that he was taking the case "to the study".

The hearing took place after Democrats in the House had won two key legal victories this week. Two separate federal judges then ruled that financial institutions could hand over Trump's financial records to legislators investigating the president.

It is unclear exactly how McFadden will govern. If it determines that Democrats in the House can not sue the administration, the lawsuit could be dismissed – which lawmakers would probably appeal.