The Supreme Court, by 5-4 votes, has denied a request to stop the construction of President Trump’s border wall over environmental concerns.
Several groups, including the ACLU and the Sierra Club, had asked the higher court to get involved again after judges last year cleared the way for the administration to use military funds for construction while the case was going through the courts.
A federal appeals court ruled against the administration last month, but judges, for now, have given the administration another temporary victory.
TRUMP TOURS WALL WHILE CONSTRUCTION REACHES 200 MILE MARK, SAYS SOUTHERN BORDER ‘HAS NEVER BEEN SAFER’
“The fight continues,” said Dror Ladin, staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Each lower court to consider the issue has declared President Trump’s border wall illegal, and the Supreme Court’s temporary order does not decide the case.” I will return to the Supreme Court to stop Trump’s xenophobic border wall once and for all. ”
The four liberal judges disagreed with Friday’s order.
In June, the Supreme Court also declined to hear an appeal from a coalition of environmental groups that rejected the Trump administration’s construction of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, challenged a 1996 law that gives the president the authority to combat illegal immigration and border crossings, and limit some legal challenges.
The coalition claimed that the Trump administration did not carry out enough environmental impact studies for the construction and that endangered species such as the jaguar and the Mexican wolf would be adversely affected by the barrier.
They claimed in their case that the law’s permission for the Secretary of Homeland Security to renounce the laws necessary to allow the rapid construction of border fences violates the separation of powers of the Constitution. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had dismissed the case, citing a previous 2007 case with “an almost identical context.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“This Tribunal considers the precedent to be persuasive, and compels the conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ claim does not establish plausible constitutional claims as a matter of law,” said the Circuit Court ruling.
Fox News’ Alex Pappas, Ronn Blitzer and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
