ELR Citation: 50 ELR 20080
No(s). 1:19-cv-00408 (TNM) and 1:19-cv-00720 (D.D.C. Apr 2, 2020) (McFadden, J.)

A district court granted in part and denied in part the Trump Administration's motion to dismiss a challenge to its plans to fund construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. An environmental group argued that the president exceeded his authority under the National Emergency Act (NEA) when he declared a national emergency at the southern border. The court found that determining whether a crisis had reached the point of a national emergency was inherently a subjective and fact-intensive inquiry that would require the court to make integral policy choices about the country's national security, immigration, and counterdrug policies, and thus presented a non-justiciable political question. Another environmental group argued that the president unlawfully used his authority under the NEA as a political negotiating tactic. The court found that deciding whether the president's motives were pure in declaring a national emergency again raised a political question that should be left to the political branches to solve. Both groups next argued that the government violated NEPA by failing to conduct environmental impact reports, solicit public engagement, and properly coordinate between agencies. The government asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the groups' NEPA claims because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) waived NEPA for the challenged construction. The court agreed, finding that DHS had the authority to waive NEPA's requirements. The groups also argued that the government violated several statutes related to the appropriation of funds for military construction and counterdrug activities, and that federal agencies inappropriately allocated those funds to construct barriers along the border. The government moved to dismiss the claims for failure to meet the APA's threshold requirements for review, failing to fall within the statutes' zones of interest, and failing to state claims under the APA. The court found that one of the groups' claims—that the government violated §739 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) by using funds from other appropriations to increase funding for a "project" in the president's budget—sufficiently stated a claim, but that all other claims failed. It therefore denied the government's motion as to the CAA §739 claim, but granted as to all other claims.