It's a win for Trump; but only on procedural grounds. The broader legal battle over the wall is far from over.
The ruling upholds a trial court decision holding that the president cannot divert military funds to builds his proposed border wall.
The decisions expand on the same judge's earlier preliminary ruling holding that the president cannot reallocate military funds to build his border wall.
The decision does not reach the merits of President Trump's attempt to divert military funds to build his border wall.
The first court decision on Trump's plan to reallocate federal funds to "build the wall" goes against the administration.
Cosimo Cavallaro tackles a wedge issue.
An interesting proposal for an energy-water corridor along the U.S.-Mexico border that might even pay for itself.
How the overwhelming vote against Trump's position could potentially affect the lawsuits challenging the legality of the declaration.
A clear rebuke of Trump, though mainly a symbolic one
Democrat Senator on Trump's Enthusiasm for Eminent Domain: 'Language You'd Expect Out of Some Autocrat'
"What a betrayal of conservative principles this is," Sen. Michael Bennet says.
It's a problematic sentiment on several levels.
The Kentucky senator's opposition appears to be the critical 51st vote in opposition to the president's executive power grab.
Cramer tells Reason he's not sure which way he'll vote on a resolution to block it.
Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash joined with Democrats to oppose the president's power grab.
"We have to make sure that each branch stays within its own lane and Congress retains its power over the purse."
The strongest legal argument against Trump's attempt to use emergency powers to build the wall is that declaring an emergency does not authorize him to spend money and condemn property for that purpose. But he also lacks grounds to declare an emergency in the first place.
More than 200 Democrats-plus one Republican-co-sponsor a joint resolution against Trump's national emergency declaration.
Easing pot prohibition is doing what the failed war on drugs never could.
Trump has exhibited a "flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution," the suit reads.
A variety of legal experts weigh in on the subject, including me. Most conclude Trump may have the authority to declare an emergency, but not to spend funds and seize property for the wall.
"Exactly what sources and what individuals this money comes from is obscure, and it's obscure because that's the way the federal government wants it."
"But I wanted to do it faster."
Plus: Congress forgets to fund the First Step Act, The New York Times chastises smug politicians over Amazon, and what if the U.S. were 100 city-states?
A summary of the reasons why Trump lacks the power to use emergency powers to build his border wall, and why it would cause great harm and set a dangerous precedent if he did. Other than that, it's a great idea!
Trump won't rely on Congress to fund his 200 miles of border wall.
New Bipartisan Spending Deal Includes Billions More for Border Barriers, TSA, and Everything In Between
With the federal government $22 trillion in debt, Congress has decided to spend more money.
The city was among the safest in the country long before the wall was built.
Make no mistake about it, avoiding another shutdown is for the best.
Congressional leaders have reached a compromise. But Trump will have the final say.
"We are used to seeing the federal government make decisions about our surroundings," one resident said.
Trump's State of the Union Will Probably Be About a Border Wall That 60% of Americans Say They Don't Want
The president has devoted himself to a pointless, self-defeating project.
Give up your quest for wall funding and fire Stephen Miller, please.
Miller's enforcement-plus agenda is destroying Trump's presidency.
Pew survey data complicate the young/old and left/right framing of this issue.
Behold HB 2444, which would have required a $20 fee to remove pre-installed porn filters on devices that connect to the internet.
The op ed explains why this option is not legal - and why it would set a dangerous precedent if the president succeeded in doing it.
The op ed describes the extensive harm likely to be caused by condemning the large amounts of private property that would need to be seized to build the wall.
But Democrats shouldn't simply walk away.
Anti-Wall GOP Rep. Will Hurd: 'There's a Thing We Care About in Texas Called Private Property Rights'
Some members of Congress still care about private property.