GOP Senators Who Backed Trump’s Emergency Declaration Lose Military Funding Republicans who supported an emergency declaration on the U.S.-Mexico border are discovering the cost of standing with President Donald Trump: millions of dollars in federal funds diverted away from planned military construction projects in their states. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-border-wall-military-funds-senators_n_5d6fff9ce4b0cdfe0579f881 Poetic justice?
I'm pretty sure SCOTUS already took the power of the purse away from congress though: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/us/politics/supreme-court-border-wall-trump.html
Ahh the devil is in the details my friend: "While the order was only one paragraph long and unsigned, the Supreme Court said the groups challenging the administration did not appear to have a legal right to do so." The Court did not side with Trump nor declare what he did was legal. It said, the group that filed the lawsuit had no standing to do so. Sierra Club, a private organization brought the suit and they really have no standing on this so the SC overturned lower court stay. Private organizations have limited standing to sue over government actions and Breyer said: "This case raises novel and important questions about the ability of private parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would express no other view now on the merits of those questions." "The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment." Lot of legal mumbo jumbo but the main part is in red. Congress could file a suit or a recipient of funds under the law now denied by redirection could sue and both parties would have direct standing. Doubt they will though...
But the injunction should still stand. Regardless of the plaintiff's standing, if the action is unconstitutional, isn't the injunction on the action, not the merit of the plaintiff's standing to sue? This "no standing" is sounding like BS: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/us/politics/trump-hotel-emoluments-constitution.html
Dems might be ok letting this precedent stand for the low cost of 3.6 billion dollars knowing what they can do with it in the future.