Trump's words used against him in national emergency lawsuits



The words of President Donald Trump are used against him in a series of lawsuits challenging his declaration of national emergency on the southern border.

Trump tweet 2014

The "highlights," wrote the group, including "the historical pattern of unauthorized immigrants committing crimes at rates significantly lower than those born in the country," have not changed since the Inauguration of Trump in 2017.

States argue instead that the president 's inability to obtain congressional funding is the reason for the national emergency declaration.

In addition to Trump's comments on Friday, the group of states quoted the president's comments to reporters last month in which he had stated that his "threshold" for declaring a national emergency was "if I can not conclude a agreement with unreasonable people ".

The president said on Friday that he was planning a number of court challenges and that he hoped to eventually be justified by the US Supreme Court.

"Hopefully we'll get a fair shake and we'll win in the Supreme Court just like the ban," Trump said.

The judges confirmed a version of the travel ban imposed by the president in June 2018, after it was blocked by lower courts. The ban was challenged on the grounds that it was motivated by hostility towards Muslims. The reasoning of the Supreme Court at the time could be good news for the president 's national emergency declaration.

In the case of the travel ban, the state of Hawaii contended that the president's public statements and tweets showed his intention to discriminate against Muslims. But the judges, ruling at five against four in favor of the president, concluded that the tweets were not relevant in this case and were content to rely on the text itself. ;prohibition.

"The issue before us is not to know whether to report the statements," said Chief Justice John Roberts in the court's opinion upholding the court's order. President.

"On the contrary, it is the importance of these statements when we review a seemingly neutral presidential directive that addresses an issue that lies at the heart of the executive's responsibility."


Source link