Home / FEATURED ARTICLES / Federal Judge Refuses to Issue Injunction in Democrat Lawsuit Against Trump Plan to Use DoD Funds to Build Border Wall

Federal Judge Refuses to Issue Injunction in Democrat Lawsuit Against Trump Plan to Use DoD Funds to Build Border Wall

General Michael Flynn defense fund Fellow patriots, please listen to this short, inspiring message from General Flynn. General Michael Flynn exemplifies patriotism, courage, and love of God and country - despite some of his own countrymen relentlessly attacking him. Donations for his defense are greatly appreciated. If you can only give $5.00, please do so - every little bit helps. Thank you so much, and God bless. Letter from General Flynn. 

By Jon Dougherty for The National Sentinel

A lawsuit filed by House Democrats in an attempt to stop POTUS Donald Trump from spending billions of dollars from the Defense Department budget for new border walls along the U.S.-Mexico boundary has hit a legal wall of its own: A skeptical federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden was asked by Democrats to block the Trump administration from reallocating the funds from DoD after Congress outright refused to give POTUS funding he sought for the project, Bloomberg News reports.

However, McFadden — nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2017 — expressed reservations about the House Democrats’ legal position from the outset, questioning whether the federal judiciary is the proper forum to resolve disputes that arise between the Executive and Legislative branches.

McFadden questioned House lawyer Douglas Letter if his clients had already tried all other avenues to resolve their dispute with POTUS.

But the judge — a 2017 Trump nominee — had reservations, opining at the outset about an apparent lack of legal precedent and whether courts are the right forum for resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The so-called legal standing question “strikes me as a significant issue in this case,” McFadden said.

Letter responded in the affirmative noting that they had said no to the president in terms of voting to support his funding request.

Bloomberg noted further:

The standoff over the funding, which began in December, resulted in a record 35-day partial shutdown of the federal government, after which both houses of Congress appropriated just $1.4 billion for Trump’s long-sought barrier. Trump signed the legislation, immediately declared a national emergency and said he’d tap other sources to get the rest of the money, raising the ire of Democrats.

“We cannot have the president appropriating money,” Letter told McFadden during the nearly three-hour hearing Thursday. That is a power reserved solely to Congress under the Constitution and, thus, goes “to the very heart” of our system of checks and balances.

Meanwhile, Justice Department lawyer James Burnham told McFadden the Constitution contains no provisions for allowing one branch of government to sue another in a battle that is then decided by the third branch — a notion he says our framers would have considered “ridiculous.”

You Might Like

As such, Burnham asked McFadden to rule that the House has no constitutional standing to sue the Executive Branch, adding, “Congress has plenty of tools to deal with the problem.”

In addition, he argued that the administration was only spending money that Congress had already allocated, even if it might have originally been intended for other purposes.

But was it? Before Trump, Congress has passed scores of spending bills containing funds that are allocated to a specific department or agency but not for a specific purpose, giving presidential administrations a lot of leeway in how those funds are eventually spent.

Plus, there is a substantial argument to be made that spending DoD funds to provide border security to the country enhances national security, a distinct function of the Pentagon.

You Might Like

For his part, Letter insisted that “both branches do expect the courts to tell them what the Constitution means,” and in many respects that’s true. But the allocation of funds approved by Congress but which are not earmarked for specific purposes negates any claims over control of the funds that Congress may attempt to reclaim after the fact.

House Democrats wanted McFadden to issue a broad preliminary injunction halting the administration’s intent to spend the funds, but he refused, saying he will take both positions under consideration before issuing a ruling.

We’ll see how it goes, but so far, so good for the administration’s ability to continue delivering on the president’s promise to build a “big, beautiful wall” to combat illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

Image Credit: Blogtrepreneur


Please Spread the Word and Share This Post

Viewpoints expressed herein are of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted or linked therein, and do not necessarily represent those of True Conservative Pundit

TCP News is an Amazon affiliate, by clicking certain links contained within posts, TCP may or may not earn a commission.

Another way you can support us is to purchase my book.

Subscribe to my daily newsletter, and join hundreds of daily readers and receive news and relevant commentary

Don't forget to follow True Conservative Pundit on Facebook, Gab, SpreelyUSA Life, and Twitter

If you value what you see on True Conservative Pundit, please consider donating, any amount helps

donate to TCP News

About Guest Author

Leave a comment - or not. We have NO tolerance for trolls, abusive and inflammatory comments, or those laced with profanity. No more than two links. Keep it clean and on point, or be banned.