Advocacy / AMAC In The Media / Keeping America Safe / Politics

President Trump Wins Critical Supreme Court Ruling – for Border Security

supreme court

President Trump scored a major political and security victory for the American People on July 26th, when the US Supreme Court sided with him – allowing the transfer of $2.5 billion dollars from defense programs to construction of a border wall.   To some, the ruling is a surprise – it should not be. 

The President sought to execute a “top-level transfer” for one-tenth of required funding to construct the southwest border wall.  The wall aims to deter illegal crossers and drug traffickers, as well as helping federal law enforcement intercept them, channeling them to chokepoints.

If this seems common sense, a quick review of legal issues – resolved and left dangling– is worth a pause.  The president’s view is that any president has the right to transfer funds when an unexpected contingency requires – in order to protect the American People. 

Unexpected spikes during early 2019 in illegal alien crossings, drug trafficking and border threats offered a strong case for addressing the unexpected.  In February, President Trump assessed the situation as a national emergency, a decision reaffirmed by record illegal inflows in March, April, May, and June. 

In order to initiate wall construction, the president drew on defense-related funds, in part linking border security and national security.  Again, his approach seems eminently logical, and prima facie legal.

Nevertheless, a 49-year-old Obama-appointed judge from Oakland California, Hayward Gilliam, decided that he had a better understanding of border and national security, executive power, and political imperatives of the moment.  In May, Gilliam granted a preliminary injunction, barring use of those defense funds for wall construction – as the larger case progressed.

Interestingly, federal monies are often reprogramed, top level transfers often executed – they have been in all administrations, although never for border wall enhancement.  Also national emergencies – more a term of art than call to arms – are also common among presidents of both parties.

Maybe it was no surprise then that another federal judge – Trevor McFadden in DC – issued a ruling one week later disagreeing with that Ninth Circuit judge.  Not to be outdone, in June Judge Gilliam then fired back, issuing a permanent injunction, effectively blocking initial work on the wall in places that would clearly benefit, such as El Paso, Texas and Yuma, Arizona.

Now, to the rescue – enter the US Supreme Court.  On July 26th, a 5-4 ruling made clear that the president was within his rights – that the transfer was legally permissible, national emergency ample to warrant the transfer, and permanent and preliminary injunctions by the Obama judge unsustainable. 

In a phrase, God bless America’s Supreme Court and rule of law.  While this ruling does not end the matter, it does open the way for construction on the southwest border wall to start.  Realistically, the $2.5 billion is no more than a down payment, but it sends a message – one that deters and assists in stopping illegal border crossers and drug traffickers.

What else does this ruling mean?  Several things.  First, while short and divided, even liberal Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent supported the President’s ability to initiate wall contracts by transferring funds to prepare for construction.  That seems a stone’s throw from affirming the president’s broad transfer authority, a distinction without a difference, and thus a helpful hint about the final ruling.

Second, watching the President suddenly – and somewhat illogically – stopped by another Ninth Circuit Obama-appointee, then reversed by the Supreme Court, suggests that other pending Ninth Circuit rulings against this president may also be resolved in his favor, making Ninth Circuit decisions outliers. That also is promising.

Third, and most importantly, fully securing the United States’ borders – a fundamental aspect of preserving national sovereignty – can now begin.  To many, it may seem absurd that a president elected in 2016 should have to wait until mid-2019 for a Supreme Court ruling to go forward.  But that is rule of law, sanctity of constitutional promise – and why we strive, with unbroken stride, to assure rule of law at the border.

The Solicitor General put it best, pressing the Supreme Court to do the right thing – which they did.  He wrote that plaintiffs’ “interests in hiking, bird watching and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to staunch the flow of illegal narcotics across the  southern border.”  Indeed. 

What lies ahead, of course, is resolving how to get other national leaders to understand the importance of border security, respect for sovereignty, and why protecting the nation at its perimeter is vital.  History is made in small steps, but this one was in the right direction.   Thank goodness!

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Read more articles by Robert B. Charles

42
Leave a Reply

30 Comment threads
12 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
35 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Anne C Olson

It is about time! Living here in Texas, we have had a small army of men guarding our border already. We have had private dollars go into construction of the wall at El Paso. Texas says, “Hell, Yeah and git er’ done!”

Rick J.

President Trump needs four more so the Supreme Court can remain the last sane court in the land.
If the court goes left the country is lost.

Paul W

Wow! Roberts sided with POTUS. Wonders never cease.

Bill Hartwig

Of course you notice how this major victory for the US citizens is making major headlines in the media. Their silence is deafening. What a disgrace to the freedom of the press as envisioned by our constitution.

Pete from St

Forget the wacko Ninth District, explain to me how four Supreme Court justices could vote to strip the President of his duty to defend the country to the best of his ability. I’ll bet that judge in California would not have hesitated to approve it if it had been initiated by Obama, nor would have at least 3 of the Supreme Court justices.

Chief601

It shows more than that. It shows that by one vote the justices did the right thing. One vote. Imagine what would have happened if the former White House occupant had appointed another justice. The Democrats knew all along they should have lost that one but with the dead one (RBG) and the other socialist clones toeing the party line it was a close vote.

Stephen Russell

Victory, now watch some underling judge upend this deal? lower end judges like RINOs intefere all the time.
Enough
End judicial activists now or we Lose

Bob R

The Ninth Circuit Court is also know as, “The Wheaties Box Circuit”, because it’s full of flakes. This is another example of why they deserve that name.

The precedent of moving funds has a long established history. This is just another case of an activist judge imposing their own political whims on the law.

Dee

Supreme Court is final decision. yippee. this invasion must stop. Guatemala has agreed to help now, Mexico is starting, they are going to build up the big wall at the southern border of Mexico which is in disrepair.

Brenda Blunt

Finally! Perhaps if one of those illegals found their way to their house, I bet those judges would not interfere in building th as t much needed wall!!! Go USA!!

Denise

Great!

carol

America put El Chapo behind bars and now his billions can be seized. Ted Cruz had a great idea to take those billions in drug money from El Chapo and use that money to build the wall! I’d like to see Congress address this. With that money and the money Trump has allocated, we could at least do something right to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. For all leftist who don’t like these ideas, let these illegals live in your backyard and you take care of them! Most have little education and are coming here because some socialist activist group is telling these folks to come here and get on the government gravy train!!! We could help our own poor rise up if we didn’t have to take the rest of the worlds poor! Don’t stop this, we will become a third world nation and that helps NO ONE!

Dr. Covert

Praise God for this Supreme Court Ruling. We are finally seeing the Supreme Court’s decision to do the right thing. Amen.

Marilyn Sherod

This just shows how much we need to vote Trump 2020 and have those members of the House and Senate voted in who are working for the good of our country. Lord, in your mercy, hear our prayer! God bless America!

Sharon Harrigan

Yea for President Trump and the Supreme Court!!!

Martin

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton posted a photo of Steven Romero (the father of the 8 year old the was shot and killed in Gilroy) on Twitter and wrote: “America cannot go on like this. For the sake of our kids, we have to change.”

Hillery Clinton found time to post about the shooting in Gilroy Cal.. Will she ever post the same thing about the sake of the children at the border?

Diana

Our Constitution gives our President total control of protecting us and these socialist communist muslums democratics politicians judges all should be Fined by a least 1/2 million each for their obstruction of our President to do his job and those that keep threatening impeachment need to resign immediately we put up with the Traitors perverted lying obama that broke so many laws and tried to destroy our Constitution as Written plus destroy our Country my way would be Firing Squad for all obama and his administration

Roberta Williams

Thank you Mr.Charles for this positive article about the border issues and reminding us again that our President is continuing to strive for his campaign promises, and finally thank you Lord for allowing two new judges to be on the Supreme Court.

Georgia

2.7 billion out of the over 700 billion of the military budget shouldn’t hurt the military and will be a help in securing our border!! Yay! Glad the Supreme Court sided with Trump!!!

rbd

I’ve noticed that we frequently feel the need to say something along the lines of “while I don’t agree with President Trump’s bluntness, language, way of speaking, etc.,” when we decide to comment on him, perhaps just to show we are more proper than he by making that apology, I have decided to leave such comments out of my writings. Often we are accused by the dems of not being “good Christians” for saying anything nice about our President, dems who may not know the first thing about becoming a Christian, and to that I want to say, who among those of us who have accepted Jesus Christ as our Savior was already perfect at the time? President Trump was said to have accepted Jesus before he was sworn in. If that is true, he should have the same courtesy from Christians to be allowed to grow in the faith… Read more »