UPDATED: 10:05 p.m. – Minnesota suing!
“The National Emergency to Steal Money to Build the Wall That Mexico Didn’t Pay for so I Don’t Look Like a Fool on Fox News is not a legal thing. Congress can stop it. The courts can stop it. The Constitution demands that it be stopped.”
The Nation has it right. Now it’s up to Congress and the courts.
Congress can pass a resolution to invalidate the declaration of national emergency, Not even Mitch McConnell can prevent it from coming to a vote. If the House and Senate both pass the resolution—and it looks like a good bet that they will—Trump can veto it. Then comes the real test: can they muster a two-thirds majority to override the veto?
In the meantime, lawsuits are flying like snowflakes in February: the city of El Paso, the state of California, the ACLU, border residents and landowners—hard to say how many lawsuits will be filed before it’s over.
UPDATE: This just in: Minnesota is suing.
“Minnesota joined 15 states Monday in asking a California federal judge to halt President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, arguing that diverting funds to build a border wall would hurt the state’s National Guard and frustrate counter-narcotic efforts.
“It is also a clear overreach of the power of the executive branch that hurts the people of Minnesota and every state by manufacturing a crisis — at a time when unauthorized border-crossings are at a 20-year low — that endangers the balance of powers at the root of our Constitution,” Ellison said.”
Besides lawsuits over the national emergency and the vanity wall, the census question on citizenship is heading for the Supreme Court. The justices decided last week to grant an expedited hearing, on the request of both the Trump administration and the states suing to block the question. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by June.
Other lawsuits challenge the “Remain in Mexico” policy, under which Trump plans to keep asylum seekers out of the United States, waiting in Mexico for :
“The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 11 individual asylum seekers forcibly returned to Mexico, and organizational plaintiffs Innovation Law Lab, the Central American Resource Center of Northern California, Centro Legal de la Raza, the University of San Francisco School of Law Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic, Al Otro Lado, and the Tahirih Justice Center.
“This is no longer just a war on asylum seekers, it’s a war on our system of laws,” said Melissa Crow, Southern Poverty Law Center senior supervising attorney. “This misguided policy deprives vulnerable individuals of humanitarian protections that have been on the books for decades and puts their lives in jeopardy.”
On 2/6/19, the American Immigration Council, AILA, and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. sent a letter to DHS documenting harm to asylum seekers from the administration policy of forcing them to wait in Mexico, the inaccurately named Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).
“Quite simply, Mexican border towns are not safe places for asylum seekers—much less vulnerable unaccompanied children and families—to wait for a U.S. immigration court hearing.U.S.law has adopted the international legal principle of non-refoulement, which requires that governments do not return individuals to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. Importantly, this mandate refers to any country where an individual’s life or freedom may be at risk, not just a person’s country of origin. For this reason, current conditions in Mexico are extremely relevant to any analysis of the appropriateness and legality of implementing the MPP.”
Trump may finally be promoting a full employment economy—for lawyers.