On Monday evening, 16 states filed an indictment challenging US President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra spearheaded the group of 16 states and filed litigation in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Becerra told reporters that they would try to stop the President from breaching the Constitution, the separation of powers, from pilfering money from the Americans and states that have been allotted by Congress rightly.
The attorneys general from Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia joined California in the suit.
It’s the latest challenge to strike the Trump administration, which is already facing a list of litigations over the declaration of national emergency. Over the weekend, the Center for Biological Diversity, Border Network for Human Rights, which marched with Beto O’Rourke in El Paso, Texas, last week, and the American Civil Liberties Union all declared about the litigation.
The core the litigations are the debate that Trump is bypassing Congress to finance the wall along the US-Mexico border by announcing an emergency.
Dror Ladin, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project stated that the Constitution authorized Congress the power of the purse, and no prior president has ever tried to use emergency powers to finance a chosen project, especially a permanent, large-scale domestic project like this against the will of the Congress. This is obviously incorrect. Becerra debated that the states have the standing to oppose Trump because money appropriated to them might be at risk.
The wave of litigations was expected, though fighting them in court will probably be a bit difficult.
The National Emergencies Act authorized the President to announce a national emergency and open an inventory of funds by conjuring some statutory authority. The President has wide vigilance over what comprises a national emergency. As a result, legal experts argue that combating the announcement on the basis of the emergency itself will probably be difficult.