Another win for the Wall.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that construction of the wall along the southern border can continue, shooting down environmental concerns raised in a suit by various left-wing groups.
Organizations such as the ACLU and Sierra Club had again asked the high court to intervene in the wall after the justices last year allowed the White House to use military funds for construction while the case is still in court.
The Sierra Club maintained that if the court did not grant an injunction against the administration, the government would be able to finish work on several sections of the wall until the question of the use of military funds for wall construction is finally decided, allowing supposedly devastating consequences for the environment.
Thus, the plaintiffs argued, the Trump administration would gain "a complete victory despite having lost in every court."
Though a federal appeals court had ruled against the administration in June, the Supreme Court has for now handed the Trump administration another victory for securing the American border.
"The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that it meant what it said a year ago: special interest groups likely lack any cause of action to sue the Department of Defense from transferring funds, and the Trump Administration should be allowed to build the wall and protect our country while litigation proceeds," the White House said in a statement. "Borders are a non-controversial reality of every sovereign nation, and we plan to defend ours."
"The fight continues,” said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Every lower court to consider the question has ruled President Trump's border wall illegal, and the Supreme Court’s temporary order does not decide the case. We’ll be back before the Supreme Court soon to put a stop to Trump’s xenophobic border wall once and for all.”
Friday’s decision came down to ideological lines, with the court’s four liberal justices dissenting.
Back in June, the Supreme Court also declined to hear an appeal from a coalition of environmental groups that pushed back against the wall. Led by the Center for Biological Diversity, the groups argued against a 1996 law giving the president authority to fight illegal immigration and border crossings.
In their case, the coalition claimed the Trump administration did not perform adequate environmental impact studies and that the barrier would negatively affect endangered species like the jaguar and Mexican wolf.
Opponents of the border wall have attempted to use environmental concerns to halt its progress. Environmentalists say the barrier, which only has four inches of space between each bollard, will prevent large animals from crossing.
In particular, they fear that jaguars will no longer be able to access their prime habitat in Arizona, remaining on the other side of the border.
“Without genetic rescue from Mexico, you are not going to have jaguars in the U.S. They can’t self-sustain here. Once that flow is cut off, I don’t think we’ll ever see jaguars here again,” said Steve Spangle, former head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Arizona Ecological Services office.
But Jim Devos, assistant director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, offered a different perspective, arguing that it’s “misplaced to say Arizona is critical to jaguar recovery” because it has been “decades, almost 50 years since there was a female jaguar in Arizona.”
Calls to leave slats in the wall for large mammals has set off the alarm for some GOP lawmakers. A group of congressional Republicans led by Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona wrote a letter to the president urging him to deny the environmentalists’ demands.
The lawmakers pointed to the consequences of floodgates that were built into existing border barrier. “Predictably, U.S. Border Patrol agents are not the only individuals aware of these openings — drug cartels, human traffickers, and any other individual looking for a way through the barrier use them as an access point,” they wrote.
Never mind that illegal immigration causes significant environmental damage in the form of trash, pollution, human waste, illegal campfires, out-of-season hunting, and more. For the Left, “environmental concerns” aren’t really about nature, but about furthering a political agenda of statism. In this case, they use the environment as an excuse to weaken the border and thereby promote mass migration so ultimately erode American sovereignty — paving the way for tyrannical globalism.
Photo: HaizhanZheng/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Luis Miguel is a marketer and writer whose journalistic endeavors shed light on the Deep State, the immigration crisis, and the enemies of freedom. Follow his exploits on Facebook, Twitter, Bitchute, and at luisantoniomiguel.com.