The authorities of 16 out of 50 US states opposed the policies of Donald Trump, filed a class action lawsuit against the White House because of the president’s decision to impose a state of emergency on the southern border of the country, US media reported. According to Politico, the plaintiffs called the action of the head of the White House "illegal scheme", accusing him of trying to redirect the federal budget funds allocated to combat drug trafficking and military construction, to build a border wall with Mexico under the pretext of the migration crisis.
In the role of the plaintiffs were the authorities of such states as California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii and a number of others. As noted by Politico, most of these states are headed by Democratic governors.
At the same time, according to The Wall Street Journal referring to information received by the California Attorney General Javier Becerra, not only Donald Trump, but also the head of the Pentagon, the ministers of finance and internal security are in the role of defendants in the lawsuit. It is noted that if the claims of the plaintiffs are met, the White House’s decision to introduce the state of emergency will be suspended.
The authors of the statement of claim believe that there is no objective need to declare a state of emergency, since the level of illegal migration has already decreased markedly. But, in their opinion, other important areas of work will suffer, such as the fight against drug smuggling.
However, the administration of the President of the United States is confident that it is right. As acting head of the White House’s office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters, Trump acted strictly within the limits of his authority.
“The president has such powers provided by law. He did not just wave his wand and took the money after he didn’t get what he wanted, ”said Malvaney.
In turn, the American president himself was not surprised in connection with the filing of a class action. "As I predicted, 16 states, which are dominated by pro-democracy democrats and radical leftists, filed a lawsuit," Trump wrote on Twitter, while accusing the California authorities of being a lot more expensive than building a physical fence on the border with Mexico.
This is not the first lawsuit against the administration of Donald Trump because of the state of emergency on the border. On February 16, a similar claim against the White House was put forward by an association of Consumer advocates of Public Citizen, based in the District of Columbia, joined by several Texas landowners whose plots the federal government plans to use for the construction of the wall. According to the authors of the lawsuit, by introducing the state of emergency, the head of state exceeded his constitutional powers and violated the principle of separation of powers.
“Squeeze the President out of the budget decision space”
Recall, on February 15, the head of the White House signed a declaration on the introduction of a state of emergency on the border with Mexico. The presidential administration believes that this will allow the government to get around $ 8 billion around the congress. It is planned to use these funds to build a wall on the southern borders of the country, thus Trump promises to stop the influx of illegal migrants in the United States.
Donald Trump's migration policy is one of the most painful issues in relations between Republicans and Democrats. The initiatives of the head of the White House in this area have been severely attacked by opponents since 2017.
An irreconcilable dispute broke out between the president and his opponents because of Trump's idea to build a fundamental physical barrier on the country's southern border. Initially, for the implementation of this project, the White House administration expected to receive about $ 5.7 billion from the federal budget.
- Reuters
- © Mohammed Salem
However, Congress refused to approve this item of expenditure. In turn, Trump also refused to make concessions. As a result, on December 22, the financing of government institutions was partially suspended, the country began a shutdown, which broke records in duration - the work of the government was blocked for 35 days.
To overcome the crisis, Trump proposed a congress, in which the Democratic Party has a majority in its lower house, a compromise. He agreed to make concessions under the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program, which protects migrant minors from deportation in exchange for financing the construction of the wall. However, the Democrats rejected this option agreement.
As a result, congressmen from the Republican and Democratic parties had to seek a compromise without the participation of the head of state.
The lawmakers agreed to budget the expenses of $ 1.37 billion to build a wall on the Mexican border instead of $ 5.7 billion. Trump signed a draft budget agreed by the congressmen, but did not abandon the idea of a large-scale construction project on the border - he used the state of emergency as a backup measure , although I understood that this step would be a pretext for new lawsuits.
“The decree is signed. I will sign the final documents as soon as I get to the Oval Office. And in our country a state of emergency will be introduced. And then they will sue us, they will sue the Court of Appeal of the Ninth Circuit, although this should not be so. And, perhaps, this court will make a decision that does not suit us, then again. And in the end we will find ourselves in the Supreme Court, where, I hope, everything will be resolved according to justice, ”said Donald Trump, speaking in South Florida.
According to the expert of the International Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies, Vladimir Brutera, the American president was simply provoked to introduce a state of emergency.
“Trump, with his characteristic fervor, inability to realistically assess the situation and stubbornness, took this step. The democrats wanted to force the president out of the budget decision-making space, and they, in fact, achieved what they wanted. Whatever the state's verdict, we can say that Trump obviously lost - it is already clear that he cannot influence the congress, despite the fact that the majority in the upper house are Republicans, ”explained the expert in an interview with RT.
In turn, political scientist Alexander Asafov believes that the judicial verdict will have little effect on the actual state of affairs. According to the expert, the court will not be able to change the intentions of Trump - the head of state has his own legal headquarters, which will deal with issues that lie in the legal field.
“Whatever the court decides, Trump will not back down from his intentions to build a wall, even if this lawsuit or other actions of his opponents allow the project to be curtailed. And even if the US president wins the issue and the wall is not built, this item will be included in his election promises of the next cycle. The theme of the southern wall is of crucial electoral significance for both Trump and his opponents, ”the expert emphasized in an interview with RT.
"It is worth waiting for a powerful response"
Collective lawsuits against Donald Trump States put forward before. In June 2018, the attorneys general of 17 US states prepared and filed a lawsuit against the president, accusing him of “cruel and illegal” separation of illegal migrants with children.
American law enforcement officers began to divide the families of illegal immigrants after the White House announced in the spring of 2018 a policy of "zero tolerance" for illegal immigrants. As part of this policy, adult migrants who violated the law were sent to prison, and children to special centers. As a result, more than two thousand children were separated from their parents.
- globallookpress.com
- © Evan Golub / ZUMAPRESS.com
Another lawsuit against Trump was filed by the American Union for the Protection of Civil Liberties in the face of a woman separated from a young child. The demands of the public organization were satisfied in June by the Federal Court of the Southern District of California in San Diego. The judge ruled that employees of migration services should put an end to the practice of separating children from illegal parents. The fact that by the time the claim was filed had already been in effect a decree of the head of the White House on June 20 banning the separation of migrant families, the liberal public and the court chose to ignore.
Expert opinions on the further consequences of the confrontation of Trump and his political opponents differ on the migration agenda.
According to Alexander Asafov, for all the time of his presidency, Trump showed that he is a master of asynchronous actions. The President of the United States does not give similar answers, striking in other directions where it is not expected.
“We should expect a powerful response from Trump, but not in this direction. He will not, for example, mobilize states that are loyal to him in order to prepare response claims, but he will definitely find a way to fend off the actions of his opponents, ”the expert believes.
According to Asafov, the president of the United States should emerge victorious from this conflict.
“For Trump, any outcome of the story with a wall brings obvious advantages. Either he builds a wall, or he blames his opponents for not allowing him to protect the national interests of the United States and national security, and goes with this to the polls, ”Asafov explained.
Vladimir Bruter holds a different point of view. According to the expert, having entered a state of emergency, Trump turned many citizens and practically all political elite against himself. Many really believe that the introduction of the state of emergency was clearly redundant in order to solve border problems, the expert believes.
“This is an option that goes beyond the line of normal solutions to this problem. In any case, Donald Trump lost, because he went beyond a certain framework within which it is customary to engage in dialogue and make decisions. Acting in this way, Trump creates extremely unfavorable political conditions for himself and for his supporters. Most likely, the result of this story will be a drop in Trump's rating, ”believes Bruter.