SCOTUS rules on wall funding injunction case
Yesterday SCOTUS handed down a 5-4 ruling blocking a lower court injunction, and allowing Trump to proceed with wall building using defense funds, while litigation on the merits goes forward. One reason for their ruling had to do with the issue of whether plaintiffs had standing to sue.
This is not a ruling on the merits of whether Trump can use the funds or not, but for now that’s the practical effect it has. And if he goes full steam ahead with construction, it’s hard to believe there will be some future ruling ordering the wall to be torn down. So all in all, a win for Trump.
Note the usual 5-4 split along the usual ideological lines. One thing that a lot of commentators did not mention, but which I find especially interesting, is that although the decision was indeed 5-4, one of those four—Justice Breyer—tried to walk a line in the middle, saying that, “Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would alleviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to respondents.”
So maybe the vote was actually 5 and a half to 3 and a half.
At any rate, Trump is celebrating:
Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2019
By now we know to a certainty “What I was walling in or walling out,”… We are walling out the really wretched refuse of their teeming barrios. And we need it not since we already have many wretched barrios right here. Let’s get rocking before we have to include machine guns.
An actual “really big victory” would be a case in which the Supreme Court eliminated the ability of every rinky-dink lower court to issue injunctions of nationwide effect, intended to thwart President Trump’s agenda and actions.
I focused on Breyer, too. I thought he described the “do we or don’t we” injunction conundrum very well.
Since it did not issue an opinion setting out its reasoning, the majority appear to have agreed completely with the Administration’s Application for Stay. This case was yet another attempt by the Left to impede Trump’s agenda with frivolous litigation. The lawsuit was initiated by the ACLU, using the Sierra Club as an aggrieved plaintiff whose members might be denied their recreational and aesthetic opportunities on a strip of land along the southern border. The Application for Stay stress that such “harm” was insignificant when compared to the security of the country. Hopefully, this decision is the beginning of the Supreme Court clamping down on frivolous lawsuits from blue states whose only purpose to hamper Trump.
Democrats to minorities is like Avenatti to Stormy Daniels, claiming to be their helper, then steal from them.
Still nothing being done about the lowest Fed district courts issuing nationwide injunctions. The latest outrage is Obama judge Tigar in CA issuing a nationwide ‘temporary restraining order’ against the administration’s asylum policy after another local court said it was OK. All the Left has to do is fund one judge and they can stop anything they want.
If the Right had any b*lls, conservative district judges would start issuing their own nationwide injunctions. For example against all state laws that allow abortion in the final trimester. IANAL but this is makes legal sense since these laws are far beyond the guidelines of Roe and Casey. But of course if wishes were …
Neo, you may want to comment on this amazing AP fact check where they actually rebut (effectively) the Democrat presidential candidates favorite talking points. The AP, whodathunkit.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/ap-fact-check-some-inconvenient-truths-for-2020-democrats/ar-AAEYIyx