US President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency along the border with Mexico and predicted that his administration would end up defending it all the way to the US Supreme Court.
That might have been the only thing he said that produced near-universal agreement.
The American Civil Liberties Union announced its intention to sue less than an hour after the White House released the text of Trump’s declaration that the “current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency.”
Photo: AFP
Nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen filed suit later, urging the US District Court for the District of Columbia to “bar Trump and the US Department of Defense from using the declaration and funds appropriated for other purposes to build a border wall.”
US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and several Democratic state attorneys general have already said that they might go to court.
The coming legal fight seems likely to hinge on two main issues: Can the US president declare a national emergency to build a border wall in the face of the US Congress’ refusal to give him all the money he wanted and, under the federal law Trump invoked in his declaration, can the department take money from some congressionally approved military construction projects to pay for wall construction?
The Pentagon has not said which projects might be affected.
However, after weeks of publicly ruminating whether to act, Trump’s signature on the declaration set in motion a quick march to the courthouse.
Trump relied on the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which Congress adopted as a way to put some limits on presidential use of national emergencies.
The act requires a US president to notify Congress publicly of the national emergency and to report every six months.
The law also says the president must renew the emergency every year, simply by notifying Congress.
The House and the US Senate can also revoke a declaration by majority vote, although it would take a two-thirds vote by each house to override an expected presidential veto.
Beyond that, the law does not say what constitutes a national emergency or impose any other limits on the president.
The broad grant of discretion to the president could make it hard to persuade courts to rule that Trump exceeded his authority in declaring a border emergency.
“He’s the one who gets to make the call. We can’t second-guess it,” said John Eastman, a professor of constitutional law at Chapman University’s School of Law.
Courts are often reluctant to look beyond the justifications the US president included in his proclamation, Ohio State University law professor Peter Shane said on a call organized by the liberal American Constitution Society.
However, other legal experts said that the facts are powerfully arrayed against the president.
They include government statistics showing a decades-long decline in illegal border crossings, as well as Trump’s rejection of a deal last year that would have provided more than the nearly US$1.4 billion he got for border security in a budget agreement he signed on Thursday.
Opponents of the declaration are also certain to use Trump’s own words at his Rose Garden news conference on Friday to argue that there is no emergency on the border.
“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Trump said. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”
US Representative Justin Amash, a Republican, said Congress made a conscious choice not to give Trump what he wanted.
“A prerequisite for declaring an emergency is that the situation requires immediate action and Congress does not have an opportunity to act,” Amash said on Twitter.
ONE LAST TALK: While Xi said that Taiwan was a ‘red line,’ Biden, in what is likely his last meeting with Xi as president, called for an end to China’s military activity around Taiwan China’s military intimidation and economic coercion against Taiwan are the main causes of tensions that are destabilizing peace in the Taiwan Strait, Taipei said yesterday while thanking US President Joe Biden for expressing Washington’s firm stance of maintaining peace and stability in the region. Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) met on Saturday for their third meeting and their first talks in seven months on the sidelines of the APEC forum in Lima, Peru. It was likely Biden’s last meeting as president with Xi. During their conversation, Biden reiterated the US’ opposition to any unilateral change to the “status quo” from either
Taiwan would participate in the 2026 APEC summit to be hosted by China after Beijing promised it would ensure the personal safety of attendees, Taiwanese national security sources said yesterday. The APEC Leaders’ Machu Picchu Declaration announced yesterday said that China would host the APEC summit in 2026. Beijing proposed hosting the summit shortly before this year’s gathering began on Friday, a national security official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Many APEC members expressed concerns about China hosting the event and said that prior communication over the decision was insufficient, the official said. Taiwan brought up concerns about legal “guidelines” China announced in
SUPPORT: Arms sales to NATO Plus countries such as Japan, South Korea and Israel only have to be approved by the US Congress if they exceed US$25m The US should amend a law to add Taiwan to the list of “NATO Plus” allies and streamline future arms sales, a US commission said on Tuesday in its annual report to the US Congress. The recommendation was made in the annual report by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), which contained chapters on US-China economic and trade ties, security relations, and Taiwan and Hong Kong. In the chapter on Taiwan, the commission urged the US Congress to “amend the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 to include Taiwan on the list of ‘NATO Plus’ recipients,” referring to
Minister of Labor Ho Pei-shan (何佩珊) said she would tender her resignation following criticism of her handling of alleged bullying by Ministry of Labor Workforce Development Agency branch director Hsieh Yi-jung (謝宜容) resulting in the death of an employee. The ministry yesterday gave Hsieh two demerits and said she is subject to review by the Disciplinary Court. The severest possible punishment would be her removal from office and being barred from government jobs indefinitely. Workforce Development Agency Director-General Tsai Meng-liang (蔡孟良) also received a major demerit and was transferred to another position. Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) issued a formal apology
RSS