Quantcast

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Missouri AG wants Biden to use funds to build border wall

Hot Topics
Border

ST. LOUIS — A federal judge in Texas ruled that the Biden Administration must use congressionally appropriated funds on the southern border wall.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined the General Land Office of the State of Texas, GLO Commissioner George P. Bush and Texas in a lawsuit against President Joe Biden, the federal government, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, U.S. Border Protection Acting Commissioner Troy Miller and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection over funding for the southern border.

U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton issued a memorandum opinion and order in the case on March 8 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. 

Bailey said the decision by Tipton was a step in the right direction.

"The Biden Administration has failed to abide by the law to finish the construction of a wall along the southwest border," Bailey said. "Joe Biden refuses to carry out his constitutionally mandated responsibilities, so we took him to court to force him to do his job. This is a huge step forward in the fight to secure our border at a key moment in our nation’s history."

In recent years, the issue of border security between the United States and Mexico has been a topic of significant debate and action, according to the Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Walls and fences have long existed along this border, but it was in 2016 that former President Donald J. Trump made "building a wall" a central promise of his presidential campaign.

During his presidency, efforts were made to construct more walls or expand existing barriers. This case specifically focuses on Congress's allocation of approximately $1.4 billion for a barrier system along the southwest border in 2020 and 2021.

Upon assuming office on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden had a different approach to these funds and he immediately paused the obligation of these funds via proclamation and directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reassess the situation. 

DHS then issued two plans under this directive, leading to two consolidated lawsuits: one by the GLO and another by the States of Missouri and Texas.

The states and GLO filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent the implementation of Biden's proclamation and to compel DHS to use the congressionally appropriated funds for the border barrier system, according to the opinion.

DHS argued that an injunction would not be appropriate since spending decisions were within its discretion. However, the court disagreed, stating that adherence to federal laws is not an area traditionally left to the Executive Branch's discretion, and DHS's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court then partially granted the plaintiffs' motion.

The court then considered whether the potential harm to the plaintiffs outweighed harm to the government and if the injunction would serve the public interest.

 The court found that without the injunction, the plaintiffs would face substantial harm to their state budgets, and the public interest would be served by ensuring compliance with appropriations bills.

The court then concluded that all four elements of a preliminary injunction were satisfied.

The court granted the motion for preliminary injunction, ordering the federal government and related entities to be restrained from implementing the July 2022 amended plan to the extent it did not align with specific statutory provisions. 

The federal government was prohibited from using funds for certain purposes not authorized under the statute, and the injunction would remain in effect until a final resolution or further order from the court or higher courts.

The court also stayed the effect of the final judgment for seven days to allow the federal government to seek relief at the appellate level.

The ruling clarified the limits and proper use of the appropriated funds for the border barrier system, reflecting a significant decision in the ongoing debate over border security policies.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division case number: 7:21-cv-00272

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News