[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – President Trump ended clashes between the court and the House on Monday, when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by the Democrats – controlled chamber, which sought to prevent him from interfering. use emergency powers to build a wall along the southwestern border.
Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the House could not prove that she had suffered the kind of harm that gave her the right to sue.
The decision will have no immediate practical consequence as other groups have already obtained an order barring Mr. Trump from continuing. But if other courts accept Justice McFadden's reasoning, the House's litigation options will weaken as they confront the President on several fronts.
The decisions of the trial judges do not, however, create binding precedents, and the decision of McFadden J. does not concern subpoenas issued by the House requesting information from the administration. He stated that a different legal analysis applied to disputes arising from such subpoenas.
Mr. Trump declared a national emergency in February to try to access billions of dollars after Congress refused to give him money to build a wall. Last month, Judge Haywood Gilliam of the US District Court for the Northern District of California seized a preliminary injunction barring the administration from redirecting funds under the emergency declaration. Judge Gilliam has been appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama.
The cases in California were brought by private groups that were not debated in the matter settled on Monday.
Justice McFadden stated that courts should generally only resolve disputes between the other two branches as a last resort. Here, he writes, "Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its power," including legislation "aimed at expressly restricting the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall".
In addition, said Judge McFadden, "as she has recently shown, the Chamber is more than capable of investigating the conduct of the executive". The Chamber may also file briefs in private party proceedings, he added. Case of California.
"These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House," wrote Judge McFadden.
Judge McFadden's decision is in conflict with a 2015 decision by Rosemary J. Collyer, who also sits on the Federal District Court in Washington, DC, and was appointed by President George W. Bush. Judge Collyer estimated that the Republican-controlled House had the power to challenge expenses incurred under Obama's Health Care Act, the Affordable Care Act.
At the time, counsel for the House argued that prosecuting the White House was the only way to preserve its constitutional power to control federal spending and to prevent the administration from distributing government grants. $ 136 billion to insurance companies.
Judge McFadden limited the reasoning of his reasoning on one point, stating that the courts could weigh in disputes between the other two branches arising from subpoenas issued in Congress.
"Using the judiciary to defend the investigative power of the House is constitutionally distinct," he wrote, adding that "the power of inquiry is one of the few constitutional powers that each House of Congress may exercise individually. "
"It may be for this reason," he wrote, "that the investigative power of the House has been strengthened with the periodic assistance of the federal courts."
[ad_2]
Source link