The judge dismisses House Dems' lawsuit on Trump's use of military emergency funds intended for the construction of a border wall

Washington, DC, District Court Judge, Trevor McFadden, dismissed the Democrats' House complaint seeking an injunction against the reassignment of President Trump's emergency funding, saying the case was fundamentally a political dispute and that politicians did not have standing to prosecute.

Trump had declared a national emergency last February following the humanitarian crisis on the southern border, after the failure of Congress to fund his wall in a legislative way. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi of D-Calif. And House Democrats then filed a lawsuit, accusing Trump of "stealing appropriate funds" by transferring $ 6.7 billion worth of money. 39, other projects towards the construction of boundary walls.

Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental principles of the separation of powers and usurped for itself the legislative power specifically devolved by the Constitution to Congress."

But in his decision, McFadden, appointed by Trump, hinted that Democrats were trying to bypass the political process.

"This case raises an important question as to the role that the judiciary should play in settling disputes between the other two branches of the federal government.To be clear, the court does not imply that the Congress can never pursue the executive power to protect its powers, "said President McFadden. wrote in his opinion. "The Court refuses to take sides in this fight between the House and the President."

McFadden's decision contrasted with last week's injunction by US District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, which barred the administration from using the reallocated funds for projects in specific areas of Texas and the United States. 'Arizona. Gilliam had been nominated by the then president, Barack Obama.

McFadden began by focusing on two Supreme Court cases that he called "lodestars" – the 2015 Arizona State Legislature case. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and the 1997 case Raines c. Byrd.

"Read together, Raines and the Arizona legislature create a wide range of sorts," wrote McFadden. "On one hand, individual lawmakers do not have the right to claim widespread prejudice to the power of Article 1 of Congress." On the other end, both chambers of the legislature of a state have the right to challenge the annulment of their legislative authority by referendum. "

But McFadden quickly distinguished the case from the Arizona State legislature, which revealed the institutional quality of lawmakers only in a limited case. The case of Arizona, the judge noted, "does not touch the question of whether Congress has the right to sue the president," and the Supreme Court ruled there was " no federal analogue of Arizona's power of initiative ".

The Democrats' dispute was more similar to that of the Raines affair, McFadden wrote. Depending on the framework and factors considered in Raines – including how similar issues have been dealt with historically and the availability of other remedies in addition to the litigation – McFadden ruled that the House Democrats do not have the same interests. had no standing.

Acting from past historical practice, the Trump Administration argued in its brief that when Congress worried about "unauthorized spending by the executive in the aftermath of World War I" he did not react by threatening litigation, but by creating the General Accounting Office ". The judge cited this argument with approval in his opinion, calling it "persuasive".

Examples of highly discussed political issues being resolved without involving the courts, McFadden continued, "abound" throughout history.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVATELY FOUNDED BOUNDARY WALL BEGINS IN EL PASO

For example, McFadden wrote that in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt "sacked an official from his confirmed position in the Senate at the Federal Trade Commission.The president had dismissed the official without giving any reason." a strong[] claim to diminish his power of advice and consent. … Yet the Senate has made no effort to challenge this action in the courts. "

In addition, McFadden stated that Democrats retain constitutional constitutional options to address their objections to the presumed abuse of the appropriation clause by the president. McFadden asserted that, given the case law of the Supreme Court in the Raines case, the existence of these additional options implied that the Democrats did not have locus standi.

McFadden notably noted that Democrats retained the power to amend or even repeal the law of appropriations if they wished to "exempt future credits" from the scope of the Trump administration.

As the White House had not "canceled" this legislative power, writes McFadden, there was no need for sufficient judicial intervention to override considerations of political doctrine doctrine, according to which courts generally remain outside of the delicate political issues that it is better to leave to the electorate. .

"Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter the perceived threats to its power," wrote McFadden. "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."

McFadden added: "The House retains the necessary institutional tools to make good any damage caused to this power by the actions of the administration and its members may, by a two-thirds majority, override the President's veto of the resolution. canceling the National Emergency Declaration No, it may amend the Appropriation Acts to specifically restrict the transfer or expenditure of funds for a boundary wall under sections 284 and 2808. In fact, this appears to be the case. "

The judge added that Democrats in the House had the burden of demonstrating that they had standing – a difficult hurdle for any plaintiff, which involves demonstrating a particular injury that the court can remedy.

TRUMP ANNOUNCES RURAL TARIFFS ON MEXICO UNTIL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE "STOP"

To this end, McFadden cites the opinion of former Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 Marbury v. Case. Madison, in which Marshall wrote, "the province of[C

Our task is only to decide the rights of individuals, not to ask leaders how they perform tasks for which they have discretion. "[C[Ourtissolelytodecideontherightsofindividualsnottoenquirehowtheexecutiveorexecutiveofficersperformdutiesinwhichtheyhaveadiscretion"[C[ourtissolelytodecideontherightsofindividualsnottoenquirehowtheexecutiveorexecutiveofficersperformdutiesinwhichtheyhaveadiscretion”

McFadden also wrote, citing another Supreme Court ruling: "Intervening in a conflict between the House and the President on the wall of the border would result in a conflict between the powers of the Court" almost at the height of his political tension. and could undermine the public's essential trust in the functioning of the judiciary. "

Legislators have specifically approved that $ 1.375 billion in the weeks following the country's closure have been allocated to fund 55 miles of walls along the southern border. But Trump said it was insufficient and he advanced by transferring funds from other Homeland Security projects previously approved by lawmakers. In its budget request earlier this year, Trump formally requested an additional $ 8.6 billion in Congress, saying it would be enough to build more than 700 kilometers of wall.

Emergency funds alone could be used to build more than 230 miles of gates.

At a hearing in May, McFadden hinted that the courts should stay out of the case – and hinted that an appeal was imminent anyway.

"I'm not sure how much our views will necessarily be on the courts above us," McFadden said at the hearing.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Disagreements have already occurred in the lower courts, opening the way for appeal boards. Gillam, the California District Judge who ruled last month that Trump was breaking the law by reallocating funds from the wall, has blocked some immediate construction projects in Yuma and El Paso.

"In short, the position that when Congress denies the executive's request for funding, the executive can simply find a way to spend these funds without the Congress. does not go along with fundamental principles of separation of powers dating from the early days of our Republic, "Gilliam wrote.