Environmentalists challenges denied shot down
Texas Insider Report: WASHINGTON D.C. After the federal government began to build the first new barriers on the nations southern border last week in areas that were previously unprotected by any barriers a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the Trump Administration has the power to waive environmental laws in order to speed up border wall construction.
The case on which construction is already complete in some areas and has just begun on others has taken more than a year to wind through the courts.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and several environmental groups had challenged the Trump Administrations use of the waivers arguing they went too far.
Mondays decision was 2-1 with two Democratic appointees rejecting the environmentalists challenge.
In short the plain text of the law grants DHS authority to construct the prototype San Diego and Calexico projects" the judges ruled.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges said federal law gives the administration broad powers to waive any laws in order to get the wall built dealing a major symbolic blow to the presidents opponents.
And they were referring to some of the earliest wall-building projects the young Trump administration pursued. Since then Homeland Security has constructed new fencing across the southwest border replacing vehicle barriers and upgrading old substandard fence.
In each of those cases the Homeland Security Department has issued waivers.
The waivers cover some of the countrys most often-used protections such as the Endangered Species Act the Clean Water Act the Clean Air Act the Religious Freedom Restoration Act the Antiquities Act the Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act as well as the Eagle Protection Act.
In the past many of those laws had been used to slow border wall construction so Congress approved the waiver authority in the 1990s and expanded it under the George W. Bush Administration.
A third judge a Republican appointee dissented saying the courts didnt even have jurisdiction to hear the challenge in the first place.
She said if the courts did have jurisdiction she would have agreed with her two colleagues reasoning.
