Amy Howe

Jul 26 2019

Justices allow government to go ahead with funding for border wall

The Supreme Court tonight agreed to put on hold a lower-court ruling that had barred the government from spending $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. The justices were divided along ideological lines: The court’s five more conservative justices voted to grant the government’s request, while the court’s four more liberal justices would not have allowed construction to go forward.

Today’s order was the latest chapter in the dispute over funding for the wall, which was filed earlier this year by the Sierra Club and the Southern Borders Communities Coalition. The two groups argued that government officials did not have the power to spend more than Congress had already allocated for border security – specifically, the $2.5 billion originally earmarked for military-personnel funds that the Department of Defense redirected to its counter-narcotics funds so that the money could be used for the construction of the wall.

After a federal district judge in California prohibited the government from using the Pentagon funds to build the border wall, the government went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. But that court rejected the government’s request to block the lower court’s ruling pending appeal, setting up last week’s request to the Supreme Court.

The government urged the justices to allow it to go ahead and use the Pentagon funds for border-wall construction while it appeals the district court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit. It stressed the need to build the wall “to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border,” and it urged the court to act on its request by July 26: If the construction contracts are not finalized by September 30, when the fiscal year ends, the government explained, they will no longer be available.

The challengers pushed back, countering that because Congress had declined to allocate money for the border wall, the government could not transfer money from the Pentagon to the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, they added, once construction of the wall begins, “there will be no turning back.”

Tonight the Supreme Court granted the government’s request and put the lower court’s ruling on hold to give the government time to appeal. In a brief unsigned order, the court explained that, among other things, the government had made the showing required at this preliminary stage of the case that the Sierra Club and the SBCC may not be the right plaintiffs to challenge the reallocation of the funds.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan indicated that they would have denied the government’s request.

In a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the challengers had argued that the construction of the wall would harm the environment, while the government had argued that its request should be granted to avoid a scenario in which the funds for the wall were no longer available after September 30 because the construction contracts had not been finalized. Breyer explained that he would have split the difference and allowed the government to finalize the contracts but not to begin construction.

In a statement issued after the ruling, Alexei Woltornist, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said that the government was “pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls on the southern border. We will continue to vigorously defend the Administration’s efforts to protect our Nation.”

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
  • Supreme Court allows Trump to ban transgender people from military
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies