H4... that's when Fifth Circuit UPHOLDS the the lower court and the defendant then appeals to the higher court. I never heard of Ballotpedia... but I have heard of The American Bar Association. And if the Fifth Circuit overturns... from the ABA's website: (because apparently I have to do all the work here)... If the appeals court affirms the lower court's judgment, the case ends, unless the losing party appeals to a higher court. The lower court decision also stands if the appeals court simply dismisses the appeal (usually for reasons of jurisdiction). If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court will send the case back to a lower court ( remand it) and order the trial court to take further action. It may order that - a new trial be held, -the trial court's judgment be modified or corrected, -the trial court reconsider the facts, take additional evidence, or consider the case in light of a recent decision by the appellate court. (you should know by now to not argue facts with VZ)
so it looks like it'll be Trump's admin doing the appealing to SCOTUS once the 5th upholds as is or upon revision.
Why do you think they'll uphold it? The lower court decision was by a Bill Clinton appointed judge. The composition of the 5th Circuit is over 2:1 Republican appointed judges. The statistic you pointed to above about the their percentage of overturned decisions is meaningless really, I mean each case is different obviously.
The problem is Congress appropriated funds for a specific purpose and Trump was looking to re appropriate them elsewhere. That is the violation of the powers that Congress has to control the purse strings. Now if Trump wants to use general military funds that are not directly appropriated he can, but to use appropriated legislated funds, it would be a violation of the separation of powers because then any President can ignore the budget appropriations and spend the money any way he wants and that is not how the Constitution set it up. So you are partly correct, the incorrect part is what type of military money....Secy of Defense can use discretionary and non-appropriated funds any way he deems, but you cannot re direct specifically legislated funding to non approved uses. Boom
This is how it will end... Supreme Court: Trump can use Pentagon funds for border wall https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...trump-can-use-pentagon-funds-for-border-wall/
Good Journal article from last month, I got through the paywall. _____________________________________________________________ https://www.wsj.com/articles/constr...talls-over-fights-with-landowners-11576154415 Construction of Texas Border Wall Stalls Over Fights With Landowners Three years into Trump administration, virtually no new wall has been built as farmers, ranchers and a Catholic diocese resist federal efforts to claim their land The historic La Lomita chapel sits near a levee, left, where a border wall was planned before the site, south of the city of Mission, was excluded from wall construction under border-security legislation last year. The wall would have isolated the chapel, part of the Diocese of Brownsville, between the wall and the Rio Grande, to the upper right, not pictured. Photo: Ryan Michalesko/The Dallas Morning News/Associated Press By Elizabeth Findell Dec. 12, 2019 7:40 am ET LAREDO, Texas—Nearly three years into the Trump administration, almost no border wall has been built in Texas. Local property owners ranging from ranchers to a Catholic diocese and institutions have resisted federal efforts to claim their land. The resistance in South Texas, where most land is privately owned, illustrates the challenges in building a border wall, even if funding is available. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been sending letters and holding meetings for two months asking about 120 landowners with riverfront property around Laredo, to survey their land, the first step in building a wall on it. Some around the South Texas city, where many can see the Rio Grande and Mexico from their porches, said yes right away. But others are resisting, setting up a potential conflict with the government that could drag on for years. About 200 miles southeast, in the Rio Grande Valley, refusals have led the government to sue 46 landowners for the right to survey their property in preparation for acquiring part of it, including farmers, ranchers, businesses, and several facilities owned by a Catholic diocese. SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS How would you respond if the government wanted to buy land you own in order to build a border wall? Join the conversation below. Some cite ideological reasons for resisting a wall on their land. Others say it will split their properties in two and interfere with their businesses or way of life. Ease of accessing property on the other side of a wall would depend on where the government builds access gates. Building a permanent barrier along the nearly 2,000 miles of the southern border was a signature promise of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. He and his supporters believe a wall would help to reduce illegal immigration. In the three years since, the government has built 80 miles of border wall, according to CBP, most of which has replaced existing fencing in California. In the Rio Grande Valley, the government has funding for up to 110 miles of new wall but has yet to obtain the land needed for most of it or to complete construction on the rest. While Texans are split evenly on whether they support or oppose Mr. Trump’s border wall, those in counties along the border oppose it 54% to 40%, according to a Quinnipiac survey of voters earlier this year. Auxiliary Bishop Mario Aviles, of the Catholic Diocese of Brownsville, walked past a section of border wall and rows of empty shoes symbolizing migrants who had crossed borders fleeing violence, in June 2018 in Hidalgo, Texas. Photo: Delcia Lopez/The Monitor/Associated Press In Laredo, developer Richard Hachar said he allowed government surveyors on his land because he believes the wall will help with security for his 300 riverfront lots where he plans to build homes. “We have Border Patrol on my property every day,” he said. “If we had a wall, I think it would be beneficial to my sales.” Mary Furrh Gomez, whose commercial lots are mostly vacant, signed the papers because she figured “if the government decides to do something, they’re going to do it whether you agree with them or not,” she said. But David Acevedo, who manages a 180-acre riverfront ranch, said he is concerned a barrier would make it difficult to access the Rio Grande river for irrigation and, when pumps fail, for his cattle to drink. At the more than 100-year-old Sacred Heart Children’s Home, the nuns in charge have refused to give their consent. “The nuns are holding back for the time being,” due in part to concerns over river access and irrigation, said their spokesman, Mercurio Martinez. Other Catholic institutions have said a wall conflicts with their faith, citing Pope Francis, who in a May television interview criticized “this new culture of defending territories by building walls.” The Diocese of Brownsville has refused federal efforts to survey five parcels of land it owns, including a historic chapel, an oratory with a library and a priest’s home, and three pieces of vacant land that might someday hold churches. It recently received notice of two more properties the government wants to access. Rev. Roy Snipes arrived for a morning Mass at La Lomita chapel by the U.S.-Mexico border in June to honor migrants who had recently died during their journeys, including Salvadoran drowning victims Óscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his 23-month old daughter, Valeria. Photo: loren elliott/Reuters “I don’t want to use the church property to say that no matter how dire your life is, you cannot be received here,” said Brownsville Bishop Daniel Flores. “The government is going to have to take the land. The church is not going to give it to them.” The Catholic Church is highly influential in this predominantly Hispanic area. The counties around the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo range from 34% to 70% Catholic, among the highest such rates in the nation, according to data from the U.S. Religion Census. The only new segments of wall in Texas since Mr. Trump took office are south of the city of Donna in the Rio Grande Valley, where three small chunks a few dozen feet long rise above a levee. The stretch of wall begun there is expected to be 8 miles long and cost $167 million, according to CBP. Its construction timeline will depend on how long it takes the agency to get rights to all the needed property. CBP representatives said, in an email, that the agency chooses projects based on factors including real-estate availability, priority and funding, but that working in short segments doesn’t affect the overall cost. CBP typically pays $100 to survey land. If a landowner refuses, the government must sue in federal court to access the property. When a survey is complete, the government offers a price, which varies by property, to acquire the needed land. If the landowner declines to sell, the government must sue again to take it through eminent domain. Related Migrants Find Different Fates at Texas, Arizona Borders (Nov. 11) Judges Quietly Disrupt Trump Immigration Policy in San Diego (Nov. 28) House Passes Measure Funding Government Through Dec. 20 (Nov. 19) The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows private property to be “taken for public use,” provided “just compensation” is paid. Its power has been used to help establish parks, clear land for highways and railways, and construct public buildings. Efrén Olivares, an attorney representing landowners in five open eminent-domain cases, said courts tend to defer to national-security arguments in such cases. Judges may adjust the amount of compensation landowners get, he said. Judges deciding eminent-domain cases typically try to determine the property’s fair-market value, which can be tricky if a parcel is unique or sales of comparable properties aren’t available. Some plaintiffs will simply fight to keep their land “until the day they die” Mr. Olivares said, in an effort to run out the clock on a Trump presidency and hope his successor changes course. The only way Texas landowners who don’t want a wall on their property have avoided a court fight is through congressional intervention. La Lomita Mission, a 154-year-old mission that sits on the banks of the Rio Grande and is part of the Diocese of Brownsville, was specifically excluded from wall construction along with several South Texas wildlife refuges in border-security legislation last year. Progress on the border wall in South Texas might also be slowed or halted by decisions issued by a Texas court Tuesdayand a California court Wednesday barring the Trump administration from diverting military funding to a border wall. The Justice Department said it would appeal the rulings. A freight train crosses the Texas Mexican Railway International Bridge from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, to Laredo. Photo: Matthew Busch/Bloomberg News