Thread: Trump’s ‘Mexican’ Judge to Decide Trump’s Border Wall Case

by JOEL B. POLLAK
8 Feb 2018
962 comments

Federal District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, whom President Donald Trump criticized during the 2016 presidential campaign, will hear a case against Trump’s proposed border wall project in a San Diego courtroom on Friday.

The San Diego-area ABC News affiliate reports:

The case, which is being brought by the state of California and multiple groups, challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s power to waive environmental laws in their construction of a border wall.

District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel is scheduled to hear the case on Friday in his San Diego courtroom.

The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration is violating the Constitution and state laws because it is not “conducting any environmental review or complying with any environmental protection laws.” But the federal government, citing a 1996 immigration law, says it has the authority to waive environmental laws in order to build the wall, a top campaign promise of Trump’s.

The administration notes that previous challenges to this law have been unsuccessful, saying it “has been repeatedly upheld in the face of legal challenges.”

Trump criticized Judge Curiel in 2016 when he was presiding over a fraud lawsuit filed against Trump University.

As Breitbart News reported at the time:

In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Trump reiterated earlier claimsthat the federal judge presiding in a fraud case against Trump University in California could be biased against him simply because he is Hispanic.

Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, of the Southern District of California, was nominated by President Barack Obama, and later confirmed by voice vote in the Senate in 2012 without controversy.

After attending Indiana University for both college and law school, and before becoming a judge, he served for 17 years as a federal prosecutor in California, specializing in narcotics–which, theoretically, should endear him to Trump, who has made stopping the flow of drugs a key point in his border policy. Curiel also happens to be Mexican-American.

Trump has not explained clearly why Curiel’s background means he would be unfair, and he has not said whether he plans to ask the judge to recuse himself.

In he event, Judge Curiel delayed the case until after Election Day. The parties settled for $25 million, with “no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Trump or Trump University,” according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...l-border-wall/

Where is the "environmental" review on the thousands of TONS of garbage these illegal aliens DUMP in our beautiful deserts all along the border destroying the landscape?

Our border looks like the shithole they left and lived in!

Then they dump their sewage across the border and pollute our ocean!

MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA...THE SHITTY GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING!

DEPORT THE ILLEGALS AND THEIR TRASH OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!

BUILD THAT WALL NOW!

Amen, Beezer.

Trump administration plans 250 miles of border fence in South Texas


REPORT: White House to propose billions for a fence, not a wall (video)

Here we go again. Just another reason why we cannot build a wall. BS, BS, BS. Where there's a will there's a way. This is just a lot of bunk they throw out as an excuse to do nothing. Both parties are equally guilty. If we want anything done about illegal immigration, we will have to figure out some way to do it ourselves. We all know the powers that be do not want to solve the problem because it is not in their best interests to do so. Both parties, for whatever reason, want a constant stream of illegals coming in here. The elites live in a totally different world than we do so the illegals do not bother them in the least. As for Trump, I no longer believe a word he says. He is just like all the other politicians, a lot of hot air.

19 hrs ago
By William La Jeunesse, Lee Ross | Fox News

The Trump administration could be forced to re-examine its border wall plans and more actively engage with local, state and federal environmental agencies before construction begins, based on questions asked by a federal judge on Friday afternoon.

After two and half hours of arguments, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel said he wanted additional written briefs before making a decision — likely next week.

This case comes as President Trump and Congress continue negotiations over immigration reform -- a high-stakes political issue not addressed during the court hearing. If Curiel ultimately decides the Department of Homeland Security does not have authority to waive several dozen laws to expedite wall construction, then that could raise a question: Why would the Trump administration legalize 1.8 million DACA recipients in exchange for $28 billion in wall funding if that money could not be spent in a timely manner?

While Curiel said nothing to give a strong indication of which way he may ultimately rule, he did ask pointed questions about whether the feds gave state and local authorities short shrift in its border wall plans.

Curiel inquired about the level of congressionally mandated consultation Homeland Security solicited from the state of California and local entities about ways to mitigate environmental and other harms associated with wall construction.

Curiel seemed particularly bothered that DHS issued waivers in September to allow construction crews to ignore several dozen federal and state environmental laws months before reaching out to other stakeholders.

“When must it happen for waivers to be issued?” Curiel asked. DOJ lawyer Galen Thorp said Congress didn’t specify the exact timeline of the consultation – only that it needed to happen, even if after the waiver has been issued.

By the end of the hearing, the judge returned to the issue and asked each side for additional written briefs on the matter. Curiel expressed interest in issuing a ruling before Thursday, when new border construction in Calexico, California, is expected to start.

California argues the federal government is overreaching in its authority to construct any new fencing along the border. Congress allowed DHS to “expeditiously” construct up to 700 miles of double reinforced steel fencing, but that was back in 2006. The state argues that authority has expired and any new construction would require new congressional authorization.

“Congress wasn’t interested in a deferred maintenance plan,” said lawyer Michael Cayaban, representing the California attorney general.

Environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, claim any new construction would damage sensitive habitat, and violate the Endangered Species Act and a dozen other state and federal environmental protections.

Lawyers for the administration say the federal government’s authority over border security is absolute and longstanding. Dating back to the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 and again in the Real ID Act of 2005 and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Congress gave the executive branch the power to override state and environmental protections to protect national security and control illegal immigration at the border.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/09...wall-plan.html

A Coalition of All Democratic Forces, Part III: What if Trump Wins?

The point is that there is no reason at this stage to imagine that the legislature will be a viable venue for push-back, which is a shame considering the powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Coalition of All Democratic Forces should certainly see what kind of use it might make of the legislature, but realistically, we should probably expect that the coalition’s job in Congress will be to prevent Trump from passing anti-democratic legislation. That is, the task in Congress will be a negative one of denying Trump the use of the Article I powers, not the positive one of the coalition’s using them itself.

That leaves the tool that will certainly be available: the courts. The courts have a few obvious advantages, starting with hundreds of independent judges of both parties whom Trump cannot remove from office and who don’t have to face his supporters in forthcoming elections.

This tool is not a cure-all by any means. Much of what the President does, after all, is not justiciable, particularly the president’s overseas activities. Trump as president would be able to do a huge amount of damage that no amount of litigation would be able to restrain—probably including certain versions of his utterly noxious Muslim ban. So I don’t want to suggest that what I’m about to propose can “tyrant-proof” the presidency. As I have argued before, the only way to tyrant-proof the presidency is to not elect tyrants as president.

That said, litigation can restrain certain things, and a great deal of what Trump proposes to do will be ripe for legal challenge, particularly as his actions impact individuals who will have standing to sue or the right to defend themselves. As Trump attempts to use the powers of the presidency to lash out at people or groups, the actions he takes will generally give rise to litigation opportunities.

https://www.alipac.us/f19/coalition-...p-wins-355579/