Federal Appeals Court Has Lifted Block On $3.6 Billion For Trump Border Wall Plan

On Wednesday, a divided federal appeals court lifted a lower court’s order that blocked $3.6 billion in military construction designated to fund President Donald Trump’s expanded and improved border wall.

Politico reported, “The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief order granting the Trump administration’s request to stay the injunction that U.S. District Court Judge David Briones, based in El Paso, Texas, issued last month.”

RELATED: Appeals Court Knocks Down Bids To Block Trump Administration’s Title X Abortion Clinic Rule

Funding Block Lifted

“The three-judge appeals court panel split along ideological lines, with two Republican appointees voting to temporarily set aside the injunction and the sole Democratic appointee dissenting,” Politico noted. “The 5th Circuit panel’s majority did not provide a detailed explanation for its action, but noted that last July the Supreme Court stayed a similar injunction issued by a federal judge in Oakland, Calif.”

President Ronald Reagan appointee, Judges Edith Jones, along with Andrew Oldham, who was appointed by President Trump, also said there was a “substantial likelihood” that the plaintiffs in the Texas-based suit — the City of El Paso and the Border Network for Human Rights — were insufficient in their legal standing to pursue claims that Trump’s intended spending violated appropriations limits imposed by Congress.

Barack Obama appointee, Judge Stephen Higginson, said he was not convinced that the Justice Department had a winning case.

“Although I agree with my colleagues that this matter presents ‘a substantial case on the merits’ and involves a ‘serious legal question…’ I am unable to agree, without focused panel deliberation and discussion — possibly aided by dialogue with counsel — that the government presently has shown either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm in the absence of a stay,” Higginson said in his dissent.

Higginson also took exception to the majority of the panel majority’s denying motions by the city and the border group to speed up considering the case.

“This constellation of sensitive and complex legal questions, all in the context of a nationwide injunction, warrant expediting the appeal for prompt consideration of the merits,” Higginson wrote.

After a budget standoff with Congress and a partial government shutdown, Trump declared a national emergency last February and announced he would seek over $6 billion in military construction and counterdrug appropriations to build a border wall.

Trump’s move happened after Congress agreed to spend only $1.375 billion in the last fiscal year for border wall improvements, which was billions less than Trump wanted. Trump’s plans set off lawsuits from various quarters, including “border groups, environmentalists, 20 states and the Democratic-led House of Representatives,” according to Politico.

“Last May, a judge in Oakland blocked Trump from tapping an initial $2.5 billion in military construction funds, ruling that the move defied Congress’ constitutional power over federal spending,” Politico noted. “A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel refused to lift that injunction. Last July, however, the Supreme Court set aside the injunction entirely while the appeal in that case continues.”

Higginson called the injunction that the Supreme Court lifted in his dissent on Wednesday “related but distinct” from the case out of Texas.

RELATED: Senate Lawmakers Vote Again To Stop President Trump’s Border Emergency

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they were disappointed by the 5th Circuit’s move.

“A court has already determined that the government can’t lawfully use military construction funds to build Trump’s border wall,” said Kristy Parker of the watchdog group Protect Democracy. “It’s unfortunate that the people of El Paso will continue to suffer harm while the government appeals, but we’re confident that we’ll prevail again in this next stage of litigation.”

“We, along with our clients, are considering our options,” she said. “We are confident the District Court‘s ruling is correct. The power of the purse belongs to Congress, and we will continue our fight to enforce the separation of powers our Constitution mandates.”