The Supreme Court rejected by 5- votes the request to stop the construction of President Trump’s border wall due to environmental problems.
Several groups, including the ACLU and Sierra, have asked the High Court to re-engage after judges cleared last year how the administration could use military funds to build while the case was being played in the courts.
The Federal Court of Appeals ruled against the report last month, but the courts have so far administered the report.
TOURIST TOURISM WALLS AS A STRUCTURAL MOUNTAIN 200 MILE MARK, SAYS THAT UNIQUE BORDERS “HAVE NEVER BEEN SAFER”;
“The fight continues,” said Dror Ladin, ACLU’s national security project lawyer. “Every lower court that has considered the question has ruled that President Trump’s border wall is illegal and that the Supreme Court’s interim injunction does not decide the case. I will soon return to the Supreme Court and stop Trump’s xenophobic border wall once and for all. “
Four liberal judges did not agree with Friday’s order.
The Supreme Court in June also refused to hear the appeal of a coalition of environmental groups, which pushed back against the construction of the Trump administration wall along the US-Mexican border.
Groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity have challenged a 1996 law that gave the presidential authority to combat illegal immigration and border crossings and reduced some legal issues.
The coalition claimed that the Trump administration had not conducted sufficient environmental impact studies for the construction and that endangered species such as the jaguar and the Mexican wolf would be adversely affected by the obstacle.
In their case, they argued that the statutory allowance for the Secretary of Homeland Security, which waived any laws necessary to allow the rapid construction of border fencing, was contrary to the division of powers of the Constitution. The DC Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the case, citing a previous 2007 case with an “almost identical context”.
CLICK HERE TO GET FOX NEWS
“This court has found this precedent to be convincing and concludes that the plaintiffs’ complaint does not establish acceptable constitutional claims,” the District Court ruled.
Alex Pappas, Ronn Blitzer and The Associated Press contributed to this report.