An activist judge stopped President Trump from using emergency funds to build a wall on our Southern border. Then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court judge but once it got to the Supreme Court, they can no longer ignore the law when making their decision. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned appeals court in the United States. The SCOTUS ruling means that President Trump can use $ 2.5 billion to continue building the wall plus any other money the Department of Defense can come up with. President Trump can build a lot of wall between now and November of 2020. There is still a matter of 3.6 billion dollars in emergency funding, yet to be decided.
The U.S. Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to begin building the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border using emergency funds, lifting an injunction Friday that had been imposed by a district court in California and upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
After Congress refused to appropriate enough funding to build a barrier along the border earlier this year, President Trump declared a national emergency to allow the administration to access more money. In total, he ordered $8 billion spent — though, as Breitbart News pointed out, only $3.6 billion needed an emergency declaration.
The president was exultant on Twitter:
Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2019
The decision was largely along partisan lines, with all five Republican-appointed justices voting to lift the injunction, while all three liberal justices were opposed. Justice Stephen Breyer sought to have it both ways, allowing the process to go forward but not the construction: “There is a straightforward way to avoid harm to both the Government and respondents while allowing the litigation to proceed. Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would al- leviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to respondents.”