Order 5-4 represents a loss for environmental groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had asked judges to lift an order from a year ago that allowed the government to continue building the wall pending appeals. It’s a victory for Trump, who has made building the wall a cornerstone of his presidency.
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor objected. Breyer noted that by the time the court reaches the merits of the case, part of the wall may already be complete.
“The Court’s decision to allow the construction to proceed nevertheless, I fear it may function in force, as a final judgment,”; Breyer wrote.
The dispute concerns the ACLU challenge to use $ 2.5 billion from the Pentagon to build parts of the wall along the southwest border. Last month, a federal appeals court ruled against Trump, arguing that the administration has no authority to divert Pentagon funds to build additional barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border without congressional authorization. But the opinion did not have immediate effect due to the Supreme Court order from last year which is still in force.
“The Trump administration has lost in every lower court, but is still rushing to finish the president’s frontier wall before the Supreme Court can review the merits of this case,” said Dror Ladin, a staff lawyer with the National Security Project. ACLU in an earlier statement the order was given.
He said that if the Supreme Court did not reverse its position, the wall would be built by the time the court decided whether to take the case.
Lawyers for the Justice Department urged judges to leave their place in the country, noting that the government plans to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case in early August. Such a timeline meant judges could decide early in the fall whether to hear the dispute.
“As the government has previously clarified, stopping the construction process during litigation imposes significant costs on the DoD, which may be required to reimburse its contractors for the additional costs that such a delay causes them to incur,” they argued. government lawyers.
This is a breaking story and will be updated.