Finally, an adult in the room.
From Mimi Nguyen Ly at the Epoch Times: "District Court Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia ruled that the lawsuit lacked legal standing (pdf). Democrats wanted to sue Trump for using money appropriated by Congress for other purposes to build the wall.
“This is a case about whether one chamber of Congress has the ‘constitutional means’ to conscript the Judiciary in a political turf war with the President over the implementation of legislation,” McFadden wrote.
“[W]hile the Constitution bestows upon Members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the Executive Branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority,” he added.
“The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear the House’s claims and will deny its motion.”"
Judge McFadden was nominated to the court by Trump, and assumed office October 31, 2017.
Ilya Somin, over at the The Volokh Conspiracy, offers a dissenting opinion because he's a never-trumper, so, of course, but he does raise the issue of other 'standing' lawsuits before other courts. Plus, what about 'a pharoah who knows not Joseph' shuffling around executive branch funds for different disfavored projects by a different political party?
"Be that as it may, his decision is unlikely to have much effect on the litigation over Trump's wall spending. As McFadden notes, there are numerous other ongoing lawsuits challenging the legality of Trump's wall spending. Many of them have been brought by local governments, charitable organizations, and landowners that have property and other interests in the area where the wall would be built. They clearly are likely to suffer "injury" from the wall project (even in the narrow sense of the word), and many of them are likely to get their cases decided on the merits, even if Judge McFadden's ruling stands.
Indeed, there has already been one such ruling, issued by a district court in California just a few days ago. It went against the administration. There will likely be more such decisions soon enough.
If this decision survives on appeal, its real significance will not be in the effect it has on the wall litigation, but in the precedent it sets for future congressional suits against the president for undermining the separation of powers. Some of them may involve issues where there are no private parties available to take up the slack. Republicans who applaud this ruling may not be happy when a Democratic president exploits it in the future."
That's a given - like the previous potus making an end run around around the Constitution to by-pass Congress in order to make law via executive order in the matter of DACA. Whither lawsuits then, eh, Democrats?
Tell me again why Orange Man Bad?
