Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in Oakland acted in two lawsuits filed by California and by activists who contended that the money transfer was unlawful and that building the wall would pose environmental threats.
“All President Trump has succeeded in building is a constitutional crisis, threatening immediate harm to our state,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a 20-state coalition of attorneys general in one lawsuit.
Speaking at a press conference marking the end of the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Trump called the decision “a disgrace.”
“So we’re immediately appealing it and we think we’ll win the appeal,” he went on to say.
“There was no reason that that should have happened. And a lot of wall is being built.”
The decisions are in line with Gilliam’s ruling last month that blocked work from beginning on two of the highest-priority projects — one spanning 74 kilometres in New Mexico and another covering 8 kilometres in Yuma, Arizona.
But the fight is far from over. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to take up the same issue of using military money next week.
At issue is President Donald Trump’s February declaration of a national emergency so that he could divert NZ$9.9 billion from military and other sources to begin construction of the wall, which could have begun as early as Tuesday.
Trump declared the emergency after losing a fight with the Democratic-led House that led to a 35-day government shutdown.
The president identified NZ$5.3 billion from military construction funds, NZ$3.7 billion from Defence Department counterdrug activities and NZ$892 million from the Treasury Department’s asset forfeiture fund.
The judge yesterday didn’t rule on funding from the military construction and Treasury budgets.
In the second suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, the judge determined that the use of the NZ$3.7 billion for two sectors of the wall was unlawful, although he rejected environmental arguments that wall construction would threaten species such as bighorn sheep.