_
IN A WELCOME reprieve from the Trump cases, Friday also gave us a federal case which ruled against the illicit sometimes-occupant of the White House, Joey Biden. This case involved Biden’s unlawful redirection of taxpayer monies from the construction of the wall at the southern border. Southern District of Texas District Court Judge Drew B. Tipton (a Trump appointee) issued a preliminary injunction after Texas, along with Missouri, sued the federal government to stop a scheme to divert taxpayer funds from the wall to other partisan projects, such as ‘environmental remediation.’(The order is here.)
Back in 2019, 45th President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over illegal immigration into the country and used Departments of Defense and Treasury funds to construct a wall at the southern border. In 2020, Congress allocated $1.4 billion explicitly to further that construction. Fast-forward to 2021 when Biden terminated the emergency and halted construction on his first day in office. It then cancelled all projects associated with the border wall, and the monies which had been allocated to border barrier infrastructure through the D.O.D. was transferred to D.H.S. Then he directed the Department of Homeland Security to divert remaining funds to ancillary projects near the border to the exclusion of the wall, which both Texas and Missouri believed was desperately needed. They sued and their cases were consolidated for judicial efficiency.
The Biden regime thought it could spend the remaining money in their sole discretion, despite language in the law proscribing it. They thought wrong. Judge Tipton wrote: “Agencies, when afforded congressionally appropriated funds, may expend them only for the proper purpose and amount, and within the authorized period of time.” He is correct as a matter of law, most notably the Administrative Procedure Act, including the arbitrary-and-capricious and contrary-to-plain- language standards.
The case has wound its way up and down and sideways through the court system for years. At this stage, all that had to be clearly shown is that “each element of standing is likely to obtain in the case at hand.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remanded this case, found Texas did. Texas also “would incur unrecoverable costs based on ‘illegal aliens who would not otherwise be in the State.’” Furthermore, the wall would, if built, “result in fewer illegal aliens entering the country,” Tipton concluded, referring to multiple reports indicating that it, in fact, had. Additionally, injuries to Texas are traceable to government action, and was not controverted. Given this, Texas stands a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim. Therefore, Tipton granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the regime from implementing its plan or obligating funds previously allocated unless and until a higher court rules otherwise.
Tipton’s order wasn’t a hasty review, but was carefully drafted to lead to the proper conclusion at the higher court. The regime must appeal to the Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court by 3/15, if at all.
sua sponte 