A federal judge in Oakland, California, is blocking a $1 billion portion of President Donald Trump’s $8 billion emergency budget for building the border wall.
The blocked project used $1 billion allocated by Congress for anti-drug accounts. The preliminary injunction will apply while the judge fully considers the lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, which includes leaders from pro-migration and environmental groups, as well as from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“Plaintiffs also have shown a likelihood of success as to their argument that Defendants fail to meet the ‘unforeseen military requirement’ condition for the reprogramming of funds under Section 8005,” said the judge, U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam.
Mother’s Day dinner dispute turns violent as man accused of stabbing grandmother 11 times: police
27 cruise ship workers deported after CBP discovered trove of child pornography
Pentagon’s declassified UAP footage fuels Americans’ belief in aliens: ‘We’re not alone’
Senate weighs new, painful leverage tactic as fears of another government shutdown grow
Expert Thinks Iran’s New Ayatollah Could Be Dead, Says Top Regime Leaders Might Flee to Russia
Trump Promotes Kari Lake to Ambassador, Likely Bringing an End to Her Time Dismantling Liberal Voice of America
Jen Kiggans fends off calls to resign over radio interview
Pete Hegseth faces Congress over Pentagon’s unprecedented $1.5 trillion budget as Democrats vow to block it
Lightning Strikes Feet from Protesters Opposing Erika Kirk Speech: Report
Tulsi Gabbard Launches Investigation on 120 US-Funded Biolabs – Dozens Located in Ukraine
Fragile relationship with House GOP has Senate Republicans warning ‘something needs to change’
Russia ends ceasefire, launching ‘200 attack drones’ at Ukraine
Michigan Democrats propose package seeking to legalize assisted suicide
Minnesota Senate votes to ban ICE from wearing masks, allow residents to sue for constitutional violations
Survey work begins at proposed site of Trump’s Triumphal Arch in DC
The administration’s “argument that the need for the requested border barrier construction funding was ‘unforeseen’ cannot logically be squared with the Administration’s multiple requests for funding for exactly that purpose dating back to at least early 2018,” he added.
The lawsuit also suggested that another $1.5 billion may be blocked because, in part, “the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm to their members’ aesthetic and recreational interests in the areas known as El Paso Sector Project 1 and Yuma Sector Project 1.”
Gilliam was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama in 2014.
Mother’s Day dinner dispute turns violent as man accused of stabbing grandmother 11 times: police
27 cruise ship workers deported after CBP discovered trove of child pornography
Pentagon’s declassified UAP footage fuels Americans’ belief in aliens: ‘We’re not alone’
Senate weighs new, painful leverage tactic as fears of another government shutdown grow
Expert Thinks Iran’s New Ayatollah Could Be Dead, Says Top Regime Leaders Might Flee to Russia
Trump Promotes Kari Lake to Ambassador, Likely Bringing an End to Her Time Dismantling Liberal Voice of America
Jen Kiggans fends off calls to resign over radio interview
Pete Hegseth faces Congress over Pentagon’s unprecedented $1.5 trillion budget as Democrats vow to block it
Lightning Strikes Feet from Protesters Opposing Erika Kirk Speech: Report
Tulsi Gabbard Launches Investigation on 120 US-Funded Biolabs – Dozens Located in Ukraine
Fragile relationship with House GOP has Senate Republicans warning ‘something needs to change’
Russia ends ceasefire, launching ‘200 attack drones’ at Ukraine
Michigan Democrats propose package seeking to legalize assisted suicide
Minnesota Senate votes to ban ICE from wearing masks, allow residents to sue for constitutional violations
Survey work begins at proposed site of Trump’s Triumphal Arch in DC
The case is Sierra Club, v. Trump, No. 19-cv-00892-HSG in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The decision can be read here.
Story cited here.
