U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Crucial Case Regarding President Trump’s Efforts To Secure the Border | American Center for Law and Justice

0%

Article Completion

SHARE

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Crucial Case Regarding President Trump’s Efforts To Secure the Border

By 

Jordan Sekulow

|

October 27, 2020

The Supreme Court will hear a major case related to the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure our southern border with Mexico – a case that the ACLJ has been actively involved in – to defend our nation’s security.

As we’ve previously mentioned, we have filed a number of critical briefs in the case concerning whether the Trump Administration’s use of specific federal funds for border security along the U.S.-Mexico border was appropriately grounded in the law. We believe that it was.

As Fox News reported:

The case of Trump v. Sierra [C]lub deals with a challenge to the president’s constitutional authority when transferring military funds to help build the border wall. At issue is how much discretion courts should have when the president seeks to repurpose $2.5 billion in military funds in the face of what he determines to be a "national emergency" — the influx of immigrants and illegal drugs along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously upheld a lower court ruling blocking the administration.

The Sierra Club, despite its noble claims of being dedicated to preserving our national parks, is a notoriously Left-leaning environmental and political lobbying group which has displayed a clear anti-Trump bias on its official Twitter page and openly endorsed Joe Biden for President. Along with the backing of the ACLU, the Sierra Club persuaded a lower court to overrule the President’s lawful authority to utilize funds to construct roads, fences, and lighting in two specific sections of America’s southern border with Mexico – the El Paso and Yuma Sectors.

The case has bounced back and forth between the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, including a victory for the President in his fight by allowing the Administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction of a wall along our southern border with Mexico.

But now the case has once again made its way back to the Supreme Court after further proceedings in the appeals court, with the Department of Justice filing a Petition for Certiorari last month. We joined the DOJ in asking the Supreme Court to take up the case. Now the high Court has agreed to review it, this time with the newly seated Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court.

We are hopeful the Supreme Court will again see that the President is acting appropriately within his powers to defend our nation’s sovereign borders. As we stated in our amicus brief asking the Court to take up the case:

The United States Constitution grants to the President inherent foreign affairs and national security powers. U.S. Const. art. II; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588 (1952) (recognizing that immigration control is an integral part of article II authorities “in regard to the conduct of foreign relations [and] the war power”). “The Supreme Court has ‘long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’” Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)). This kind of power must include the power to protect and secure the border. Appellants have utilized those powers within a congressionally enacted and appropriated structure. Appellants’ § 8005 transfer accomplishes precisely that which the Constitution vested and Congress expressly authorized and funded Appellants with the power to do.

At the ACLJ, we’ve long argued that our broken immigration system must be fixed. As a nation of immigrants, it is essential to ensure that legal immigration is possible for those who come to our country to seek a better way of life. But it is paramount that we also keep our nation secure and we keep out the dangerous gangs, criminals, and traffickers (yes, known as “coyotes”) who would and have crossed our border undetected and abused our system, putting hard-working Americans, including legal immigrants in danger. To that end, we must secure our border.

We are preparing a critical amicus brief to the Supreme Court in this case to ensure that the President is able to use the legal tools Congress gave him to secure our border.

Jordan Sekulow

More Articles

Jordan Sekulow is the Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

Jordan Sekulow

Jordan Sekulow is the Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

PETITION

242,783 Signatures

Secure the Border. Build the Wall.

Read Full Petition
First Name is required
Last Name is required
Email is required
Zip Code is required

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Crucial Case Regarding President Trump’s Efforts To Secure the Border

By 

Jordan Sekulow

|

October 27, 2020

The Supreme Court will hear a major case related to the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure our southern border with Mexico – a case that the ACLJ has been actively involved in – to defend our nation’s security.

As we’ve previously mentioned, we have filed a number of critical briefs in the case concerning whether the Trump Administration’s use of specific federal funds for border security along the U.S.-Mexico border was appropriately grounded in the law. We believe that it was.

As Fox News reported:

The case of Trump v. Sierra [C]lub deals with a challenge to the president’s constitutional authority when transferring military funds to help build the border wall. At issue is how much discretion courts should have when the president seeks to repurpose $2.5 billion in military funds in the face of what he determines to be a "national emergency" — the influx of immigrants and illegal drugs along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously upheld a lower court ruling blocking the administration.

The Sierra Club, despite its noble claims of being dedicated to preserving our national parks, is a notoriously Left-leaning environmental and political lobbying group which has displayed a clear anti-Trump bias on its official Twitter page and openly endorsed Joe Biden for President. Along with the backing of the ACLU, the Sierra Club persuaded a lower court to overrule the President’s lawful authority to utilize funds to construct roads, fences, and lighting in two specific sections of America’s southern border with Mexico – the El Paso and Yuma Sectors.

The case has bounced back and forth between the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, including a victory for the President in his fight by allowing the Administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction of a wall along our southern border with Mexico.

But now the case has once again made its way back to the Supreme Court after further proceedings in the appeals court, with the Department of Justice filing a Petition for Certiorari last month. We joined the DOJ in asking the Supreme Court to take up the case. Now the high Court has agreed to review it, this time with the newly seated Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Court.

We are hopeful the Supreme Court will again see that the President is acting appropriately within his powers to defend our nation’s sovereign borders. As we stated in our amicus brief asking the Court to take up the case:

The United States Constitution grants to the President inherent foreign affairs and national security powers. U.S. Const. art. II; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588 (1952) (recognizing that immigration control is an integral part of article II authorities “in regard to the conduct of foreign relations [and] the war power”). “The Supreme Court has ‘long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’” Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)). This kind of power must include the power to protect and secure the border. Appellants have utilized those powers within a congressionally enacted and appropriated structure. Appellants’ § 8005 transfer accomplishes precisely that which the Constitution vested and Congress expressly authorized and funded Appellants with the power to do.

At the ACLJ, we’ve long argued that our broken immigration system must be fixed. As a nation of immigrants, it is essential to ensure that legal immigration is possible for those who come to our country to seek a better way of life. But it is paramount that we also keep our nation secure and we keep out the dangerous gangs, criminals, and traffickers (yes, known as “coyotes”) who would and have crossed our border undetected and abused our system, putting hard-working Americans, including legal immigrants in danger. To that end, we must secure our border.

We are preparing a critical amicus brief to the Supreme Court in this case to ensure that the President is able to use the legal tools Congress gave him to secure our border.

Jordan Sekulow

More Articles

Jordan Sekulow is the Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

Jordan Sekulow

Jordan Sekulow is the Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

0%

Article Completion

SHARE

PETITION

242,783 Signatures

Secure the Border. Build the Wall.

Read Full Petition
First Name is required
Last Name is required
Email is required
Zip Code is required

Stay Connected

Email is required

Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from the ACLJ.