Advocacy / AMAC Action 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
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

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

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 years ago


Debbie R
3 years ago

When will the Ninth Circuit judges be replaced by sane, judges of wisdom and common sense?

Burton Paully
3 years ago

I see that logic has finally won out over obstructionism. Thank God no illegal border crosser should be allowed to break our laws for entry into the USA.

Big Al
3 years ago

All of these 5-4 decisions don’t appear to me that they are coming from Constitutional scholars.

3 years ago

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 for as long as it may take.

President Trump has been a good friend of Christians and Jews thus far and for that I say, “Thank you, Mr. President.” While our last president did his best to silence us and humiliate us, no one apologizes for speaking anything about him. Of course, that could be that we learned not to criticize Mr. Obama because we would be labeled “racist” even though my problems with the man were his polices and his commitment to “fundamentally change the United States.”

So, to quote a writer of a comment on another site this morning, President Trump doesn’t need us to apologize before complimenting his
efforts on behalf of what remains of our great nation in general or us, as Christians, in particular. I’ve never seen a man take the hassles and ugliness from his political enemies and still bounce back. Not bad for a man constantly labeled mentally ill (in various forms) by the
leftist democrats and media in this country, but he brushes all that aside and puts America first in his policy decisions.

If you have an issue against your brother, you are to go to him first. In other words, write a letter to him.

3 years ago

Thank God for this timely decision from SCOTUS. God Bless our President Donald J.Trump. Hopefully there will be more conservative judges appointed to the 9th and 11th Circuit Courts throughout the nation.

3 years ago

I am sick and tired of the Democrats in Congress: They are a bunch of sick children that have not grown up yet.

With the way the world is going a wall to keep our Country somewhat safe is a good idea. The people coming to the boarder was caused by the Democrats in the Obama Administration so they could break into the US, they were schooled to do exactly what they are doing by the Democrats.

I think the Democrats are way out of line, to cause such strife of a sitting president should be considered treason and indicted for what the Democrats are doing, what they are doing does not look good to the world and is upsetting many people in the USA i hear the striff from people every day its awful no peace for the citizens of the US.

As far as impeachment is concerned and the Muller investigation is a travesty of justice a kangaroo investigation and Muller out and out lied about Trump he lied for the democrats against Trump, he avoided many questions that we need to know the one who obstructed justice is Hillary Clinton, Not Trump and Muller should have investigated Hilliary Not Trump: I am quoting what i read and heard in the news and what i saw in the news that Hillary who sold Uranium to the Russians without any consent she did this in secret, she gave away military secrets to the Russians, she used a private server to write confidential letters and used that server to send messages to the Russians, the american people did not know what she really did but I worked in a defense plant and if i did confidential letters on a private server I would certainly be fired for doing that and would never ever would be able to work for the company doing government work again, nor work for any US government again.

The Muller investigation as far as I am concerned just wasted my tax money for a kangaroo court and nothing was really resolved by this investigation at all, the answers that we the american people really needed to hear were not said, the whole investigation was a big joke to have a good laugh at the stupidity of the Democrats, we the conservative american people know better.

michael failla
3 years ago

Political activity from the bench. Dont they interpret the law? Not enforce it?There is no need to put up with this. This is clearly legislation from the bench and it is clearly unacceptable.

3 years ago

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!!!

Roberta Williams
3 years ago

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.

3 years ago

If judges are ruling based on their political views and not on the constitution, there should be a way to impeach them. Even knowing that it might come around to bite us later, it’s time to start!

3 years ago

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!

3 years ago
Reply to  carol

Good luck finding where all that drug money is stashed. The Federal government has admitted it has NO IDEA where the vast majority of El Chapo’s fortune is. It is not like these drug cartels wander down to the local banks with tractor trailers stuffed front to back with cash for weekly deposits. Aside from a couple of houses in Mexico (worth a few million dollars each), it is unlikely the DEA will never find the vast majority of his money. That won’t finance much wall, even if Congress were to re-direct the sale of those properties from financing future DEA operations to the wall instead. Same holds true for every other major cartel leader they have ever captured. Rarely does the federal government locate the tens of billions in ill-gotten gains from these thugs. Senator Cruz was just spit-balling an idea of how to finance the wall IF the money could ever be found. There is of course a big difference between IF the money is ever located and seized and HAS actually been located and seized.

Dr. Covert
3 years ago

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

3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Covert

The SC merely re-affirmed the constitutional authority the President already has to do exactly what President Trump did. For them to have voted otherwise would have been both unconstitutional and a violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and also voiding all previous judicial case history affirming the constitution has vested such power to the President over the last 243 years. The issue that needs to be addressed is the stopping of rogue, liberal Obama appointed Judges issuing what amount to be unlawful national stays on virtually every lawful action the President takes. That means Chief Justice John Roberts doing his job of managing all the federal Judges instead of letting this nonsense to continue.

3 years ago

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

3 years ago

It is obvious that this board agrees with all POTUS does, but what is wrong with saving $$$ to start paying down debt ??? I believe this went up about $8 Trillion during the Obama years.

3 years ago
Reply to  JohnH

Obama doubled the debt from just under $10 Trillion when Bush left office to over $20 Trillion when Obama sailed out the door. We borrow 50 cents of every dollar the federal government spends every single day of the year from foreign governments and private investors via the sale of our ever more worthless Treasury Bonds. So we are already running the country on the equivalent of a maxed out credit card and constantly hitting up friends and relatives for “loans” to just get by.

To your specific question of paying down the debt, that would entail fiscal spending restraint and actually real spending CUTS on the part of Congress. The Democrats have a view that EVERYTHING should be managed or run through the government. So that entails massive deficit spending in perpetuity. Just look at the spending and tax proposals of ALL the Democrats running for President to get an idea how fast annual budget deficits will quickly exceed and dwarf the total current federal budget. The current federal budget is $4.5 Trillion a year and when you factor in all the “free” new programs the Democrats want to enact, our federal budget would have to rise to almost $20 Trillion a year to break even. Obviously our debt would quickly explode well beyond any hope for recovery should ANY Democrat win the Presidency.

Most of the Republicans in Congress, minus the members of the House Freedom Caucus, have no spine to stand up the Democrats or possess financial discipline to limit spending growth to the few areas of the federal budget that are specified in the Constitution. Kevin McCarthy was Boehner’s second in command and then he was Ryan’s second in command. He is no better than either of those RINO’s and for the majority of House Republicans to vote for him to lead the House Republicans instead of the far better choice, it signaled a continuation of business as usual in the House. In the Senate, McConnell has never been a budget hawk by any stretch. So for him to just vote to “go along to get along” is not surprising.

Pete from St
3 years ago
Reply to  JohnH

John, if you think the debt is bad now, wait until the next recession and the interest rate on the debt triples. The Treasury Dept will have to work 24/7 to keep the presses going printing more fiat money. I am an old man and hope it doesn’t hit until after my wife and I are gone and long forgotten.

3 years ago

Trump used another loophole to get $$ instead of letting House/Senate use their powers. Someday, these people have to quit spending & use a balanced budget & start paying down the national debt. Trump may have seen bankruptcy work for business, but that is not the way to run the USA into the ground. Most of this debt is owned by foreign countries + look at interest paid per. Wake up govt. & quit fighting party lines.

3 years ago

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?

Jack Thomas
3 years ago
Reply to  Martin

Hillary has ZERO credibility. Her post re: the Gilroy, Cal. shooting runs hollow when you consider her State Dept.’s denial of increased security measures for the US Benghazi Consulate in Libya where the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens and four other Americans died in a terrorist attack.

Sharon Harrigan
3 years ago

Yea for President Trump and the Supreme Court!!!

Marilyn Sherod
3 years ago

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!

Bob R
3 years ago

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.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x