National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States
Citing the National Emergencies Act, it ordered the diversion of billions of dollars of funds that had been appropriated to the U.S. Department of Defense for military construction.
[2][3] Trump had previously threatened to declare a national emergency if Congress did not pass his entire desired program for a wall on the United States–Mexican border by February 15, 2019.
[4] Under Proclamation 9844, the Trump administration intended to redirect $8 billion in previously agreed expenditure and to use the money to build the wall instead.
[8][9] Trump's declaration of a national emergency was condemned by Democrats as unconstitutional; U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the declaration an affront to the rule of law that was "a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall.
[15][16] In October 2019, in a separate case, a U.S. district court in Texas found that the El Paso County, Texas and the Border Network for Human Rights had legal standing to challenge Trump's attempt to divert $3.6 billion in military construction for wall construction along the Mexico border, and in December 2019, the court issued a permanent injunction blocking the attempted diversion of funds.
[19][20] On February 11, 2021, Biden wrote in a letter to Congress that the original declaration of national emergency had been "unwarranted" and that no more government funds would be used to build the wall.
[22] The Wall Street Journal reported the day of Trump's declaration that his action was the outcome of "two years of political neglect of his signature campaign promise, lost amid competing priorities and divisions within his administration," with no single administration official having been designated to champion funding of the border wall in Congress.
Trump's budget director Mick Mulvaney then privately advised the president to blame House speaker Paul Ryan for not seeking more funding.
"[23] Before Trump declared the national emergency, the United States had experienced a federal government shutdown, which ran from midnight EST on December 22, 2018, until January 25, 2019 (35 days).
[24][25][26] It occurred when the United States Congress and President could not agree on an appropriations bill to fund the operations of the federal government for the 2019 fiscal year.
[42] Roll Call reported on February 21, 2019, that over one-third of the funds the Trump administration had identified for diversion had already been spent by the Department of Defense.
[43][44] In March 2019 the Pentagon issued a list of proposed military construction projects which could be postponed, under the president's emergency declaration, so that their funding could be diverted to build the wall.
[72] The second suit was filed on February 19, 2018, by the ACLU on behalf of the Sierra Club, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, and other interested organizations and people.
[73][74] Judge Gilliam, who also heard this case, issued a temporary injunction on May 24, 2019, blocking the Trump administration's plan to divert funds not explicitly appropriated by Congress.
[76] On July 26, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a stay to Gilliam's ruling, allowing wall construction to proceed while litigation continues.
[17] In January 2020, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, issued a temporary stay of the injunction pending further appellate proceedings.
[83] In June 2019, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden denied a request by the U.S. House of Representatives to temporarily block spending on the wall.
McFadden, a Trump appointee, said the House had no legal standing to sue the president and that therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim.
"[85] In February 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in Washington D.C.[86][87] The Tohono O'odham Nation has raised the issue with the Organization of American States' Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Cocopah, Kickapoo, and Kumeyaay are also considering their legal options.
[63] Some analysts stated that if legally upheld, the declaration would vastly expand governmental power, particularly that of the presidency and the executive branch.
[4][88][89][90] Reporter Charlie Savage summarized the political impact of the declaration, saying that "no matter what else happens, Mr. Trump's willingness to invoke emergency powers to circumvent Congress is likely to go down as an extraordinary violation of constitutional norms—setting a precedent that future presidents of both parties may emulate to unilaterally achieve their own policy goals.
[105][106][107] On February 25, a bipartisan group of 58 former senior national security officials and 25 former Republican lawmakers implored Congress to overturn Trump's emergency declaration.
The former lawmakers wrote, "It has always been a Republican fundamental principle that no matter how strong our policy preferences, no matter how deep our loyalties to presidents or party leaders, in order to remain a constitutional republic we must act within the borders of the Constitution," while the security officials contended that there is no "documented terrorist or national security emergency at the southern border" nor an "emergency related to violent crime.
Reportedly, because of Trump's high approval ratings among Republicans, many in the party were concerned that expressing public opposition to the president's action could result in their political demise.
[114] Susan Collins said the president is "usurping congressional authority" while Lamar Alexander said the United States' "founders chose not to create a chief executive with the power to tax the people and spend their money any way he chooses.
"[126] and would set a precedent to allow a future Democratic president to declare an emergency taking unilateral action on gun control and climate change.
"[133] Boyle predicted that lawsuits challenging an emergency declaration would focus on issues such as whether building the wall was of "military necessity.
"[134] In February 2019, Congress amended an existing appropriations bill to protect several sites along the border, including the historic La Lomita Chapel in Mission, Texas.
[137] The local pastor, Roy Snipes, and his bishop, Daniel E. Flores, opposed the plan to use church property for the wall, and the Brownsville diocese has challenged it in court.
[141] Support and opposition was highly polarized by political party: in a Marist Poll, 94% of Democrats and 62% of independents, but only 12% of Republicans, disapproved of Trump's declaration of a national emergency to build a wall.
