The Trump administration secured Monday a stay of a lower court injunction that had prevented construction of a border wall through Big Bend National Park.
In an unsigned per curiae order eight justices agreed that Congress stripped jurisdiction from U.S. District Courts to hear cases that involve statutory claims arising under a 1996 immigration. The case marked the first time the Supreme Court clarified that its “major questions doctrine” is not strictly constitutional law.
The plaintiffs’ “claim does not allege a violation of the Constitution of the United States, the only type of claim the statute permits district courts to adjudicate,” the Court wrote. “It alleges instead that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority. And we have long recognized that claims simply alleging that the Executive Branch has exceeded its statutory authority are not constitutional claims.”
The Department of Homeland Security waived a series of environmental laws earlier this year to facilitate construction of the border wall, a controversial move because construction and completion would restrict access to the river, interrupt wildlife migration, and interfere with night sky views.
According to the April lawsuit, the barrier “stands to fragment critical riparian and desert habitats, obstruct wildlife movement essential for endangered and transboundary species, disrupt natural river dynamics, and permanently damage fragile soils and vegetation that cannot be restored.”
The Center for Biological Diversity and fellow opponents also alleged that “the region provides essential habitat, migratory corridors, and breeding grounds for hundreds of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Many of these species are federally listed under the ESA or otherwise imperiled, including but not limited to the Mexican long-nosed bat, black-capped vireo, Big Bend gambusia, Rio Grande silvery minnow, and multiple endemic plant species uniquely adapted to the Chihuahuan Desert’s fragile soils and hydrology.”
“Disruption to the Rio Grande corridor risks cascading ecological impacts across the entire desert ecosystem, including groundwater depletion, habitat fragmentation, increased erosion, and permanent loss of native vegetation,” they argued. “It will bisect transboundary populations of mountain lions, black bears, desert bighorn sheep, and regionally unique Carmen Mountain whitetail deer, restricting critical movement, migration, and gene flow.”
The Supreme Court summarily dismissed those concerns. The per curiam opinion cited to the administration’s interest in preventing immigration as justification to do so. “The District Court’s order, which bars the Secretary from exercising his statutory authority to waive applicable laws as he determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of border barriers . . . delays the Gov- ernment’s construction of border barriers and roads in the Big Bend Sector,” the unsigned opinion says. “The injunction thus impedes the Government from advancing its compelling interests in border security and integrity.”
The opinion clarified that an allegation that the President or his administration have read a statute more broadly than Congress intended, and thereby exceeded allocated power, is not a claim of unconstitutional behavior.
“Many canons and rules of statutory interpretation reflect constitutional principles,” the Court wrote. “When courts invoke those canons, however, they do so in service of adjudicating statutory claims, not constitutional ones. The same is true when a court invokes the major questions canon of statutory interpretation.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the stay order.
About Author
Be First to Comment