In a decision split along ideological lines that saw Justice Stephen Breyer try to cut the baby in half, the United States Supreme Court stayed a lower court’s injunction against the Trump Administration’s attempt to fund building the southern border wall by transferring funds from the Pentagon to the Department of Homeland Security.
The majority ruled that “the government had made the showing required at this preliminary stage of the case that the Sierra Club and the SBCC [Southern Borders Communities Coalition] may not be the right plaintiffs to challenge the reallocation of the funds.”
The injunction was put in place to prevent the transfer of funds while the case was appealed. Staying the injunction will allow the funds transfer pending appeal. No final ruling was made on the standing of the Sierra Club and SBCC.
The case now goes back to the Ninth Circuit Court, but construction is highly likely to move forward.
Since the Trump Administration took office, its opponents have frequently brought suit to coerce political outcomes through friendly courts. This has resulted in a string of injunctions by federal district judges that were effective not merely in a single district but nationwide.
That is investing tremendous power in individual federal judges, and oversteps bounds of responsibility. At some point, the Supreme Court needs to quash this sort of judicial overreach.