The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a case arguing that a key law giving authority to build a border wall is unconstitutional.
Conservation groups, led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996's provision giving the Homeland Security secretary nearly limitless authority to waive laws in the name of building border protection infrastructure like walls is unconstitutional.
"Section 102's waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch," they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can't delegate that power to the executive branch.
The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law - not just environmental ones - in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.
The Trump administration has used the power a handful of times to upgrade and repair border fencing, waiving dozens of laws each time pertaining to environmental standards, religious protection and other policies.
The conservation groups sued over two such waivers, but a federal court in California ruled that the waivers were constitutional.
The groups then appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/419445-supreme-court-rejects-greens-challenge-to-border-wall-law
Conservation groups, led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996's provision giving the Homeland Security secretary nearly limitless authority to waive laws in the name of building border protection infrastructure like walls is unconstitutional.
"Section 102's waiver and jurisdiction-stripping provisions unconstitutionally consolidate the power to make, enforce, and review laws in the Executive branch," they said in an August petition to the high court, arguing that only Congress has the power to change laws and it can't delegate that power to the executive branch.
The 1996 and subsequent amendments to it give the Homeland Security secretary the power to waive any law - not just environmental ones - in order to facilitate building border infrastructure like fences and roads.
The Trump administration has used the power a handful of times to upgrade and repair border fencing, waiving dozens of laws each time pertaining to environmental standards, religious protection and other policies.
The conservation groups sued over two such waivers, but a federal court in California ruled that the waivers were constitutional.
The groups then appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/419445-supreme-court-rejects-greens-challenge-to-border-wall-law
No comments:
Post a Comment