How to avoid being sued by Trump for ‘wall’ in Washington
Posted On August 8, 2021
It’s no secret that the federal government has been paying close attention to how Trump’s wall on the U.S.-Mexico border will affect residents living within its boundaries.
But the federal appeals court hearing the case that threatens to unravel the Trump administration’s border wall has been less kind to those who want to protect their homes.
A panel of three judges on the 4th U.N. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the Trump Administration did not have the authority to enforce its restrictions against residents living in certain neighborhoods on the border.
The judges found that the government could not block the building of the wall in any of the areas identified by the U,T.H.C. “The court has determined that the United States cannot exercise the discretion to prohibit residents in certain zones from building the wall because of their residence in those areas, or because of the risk of injury to others,” the appeals court said in a three-page opinion.
“For example, the United State has not shown that the building restrictions would be likely to cause injury to other members of the public, or to other individuals living in the vicinity of the border crossing.
The court has found that such injury is likely.”
The court’s ruling also rejected arguments that the administration should not be required to notify homeowners who live in certain areas about their right to build the wall, and to require that the wall be made of materials that are “compatible with the design.”
Trump administration officials were quick to defend their wall in the face of the ruling.
“This is not about Trump,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“There is a wall in Arizona, in Florida, in Texas, in Wisconsin, in other places.”
The Trump administration has argued that the border wall will be built on land where “the physical characteristics of the land and its surrounding environment are consistent with the requirements of the UCC, including its use for agricultural purposes, or otherwise consistent with its designation as a national historic site.”
The Justice Department said it plans to appeal the ruling, arguing that the decision “ignores the longstanding legal authority of the government to restrict the use of public lands for agricultural and mineral uses.”
“We are confident that the 4 th U. N. Circuit will rule in our favor and that our citizens will be protected,” said Sessions.
The Supreme Court did not hear the case, meaning that the panel of judges will not be hearing it at this point.
But that does not mean the decision is a dead letter.
The U.T.C.’s lawyers have argued that if the wall were to be built, it would be subject to federal court approval.
And in some ways, the panel’s ruling is a big deal.
For one, it means that even though the federal courts have blocked Trump’s efforts to build a wall, the administration could still try to use the courts to try to overturn the lower court’s decision.
“If the government can’t obtain judicial approval for a wall based on its construction, then we know that the courts will have to take up the matter,” said Matthew Vadum, a professor at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and former U.C.-Berkeley professor.
“They have a lot of work to do.
The wall will need to be constructed, but they have to show it will not cause harm to others.
But there is a significant amount of time to make that case.”
The ruling comes just months after the U-T.T., a group of scholars and activists, filed a petition with the Supreme Court to intervene in the case.
They argued that because the court was still reviewing the UT.
L.P.’s request to intervene, it could not rule on the case in time to help the government get its way.
The petition was dismissed in August.
In its decision, the Supreme, though, said that the case does have merit and that the Supreme would likely take it up.
“We conclude that the UTM has standing to file this petition,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court.
“Because the Government has the right to restrict construction of the physical barriers to enter the United Kingdom and enter the UCAVE, it may exercise its ability to restrict entry by way of the United Nations.”
The U-Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to a request for comment.