Well the government made the argument about the September 30th deadline and if the injunction stayed in place while the litigation/appeal continued the funds would no longer be available. Therefore the government requested the stay be lifted and it is up to the other parties to continue with their suit with proper standing. In a stay the court reviews both sides and determines who gets hurt more of the two and uses that to decide to lift or affirm the stay. Justice Breyer suggested they lift the stay but only to allow government to enter into the contracts but and confirm them but not commit the money while the litigation continued. He was offering a compromise between the two. Even if an action is clearly wrong, the court can choose to let the action continue if the wrong party brought standing to challenge it. This forces the party to make sure they file correctly and right party files to not burden the person the stay is being used against. Otherwise hundreds of people would file stays against any actions they don't like and the party would be harmed if court allowed the stay to go in place form a suit brought by random 3rd party. it is a judgment call of course but bottom line is SC punted because it is majority conservative and said "We really are not going to decide the merits because Sierra Club has no right to sue to challenge the misappropriation. PLenty of eligible plaintiffs out here but don't see any with balls lodging a suit to stop it.
That is what I was getting out, there are valid plaintiffs out there instead of the Sierra Club that could have filed that are not private entities but no GOP person or current government agency will do it and Dems went full Paul Ryan either being ball-less or figuring it is a small price to pay for precedent. GOP members who see money to be pulled have direct standing and are perfect candidates. Now if Trump/DOD fucks over a bunch of GOP Senators and Reps running for election next year who had pork in the spending bill that is now diverted.....well it could get ugly.
Dems seem to be vocal against the action and a few complained their state would lose funding it was appropriated so not sure why they don't file the suit or the State AG like in the muslim ban. Curious to see if anyone files but it has been crickets since SC lifted stay.
the precedent here as Ocho explains is nil. They dismissed it because of standing....it happens all the time
Sierra Club has no good position to challenge the funds going to the Wall simply because of general environmental concerns. They represent their own social interest, not real stakes at risk/harm by the actions so their standing is really weak to bring suit. They are suing basically on behalf of nature and that is often very flimsy. If 2 or 3 State AGs sued because funded projects by Congress were now cancelled or in doubt due to re apportionment of funds, then standing would be strong. SC simply decided to lift the stay without prejudice and let the process continue because they were not going to hold it up for the Sierra Club.