California Versus The Wall

Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss a recent district court opinion that rejected California's challenge to the Trump Administration's expedited border wall projects in California. 

They start the episode by discussing the boringly-named but legally-interesting opinion in In Re: Border Infrastructure Environmental Litigation. As they explain, the plaintiffs in this case are California and several environmental groups, and all have challenged the Trump Administration's waiver of state and federal environmental laws in order to allow the federal government to build new border fencing in Southern California. After recapping the case, they mention the politics in the background, including the unique fact that the judge who ruled in favor of the Trump Administration—Judge Gonzalo Curiel—was previously demeaned by Trump during the campaign. The trio then grapple with the argument that Secretary of Homeland Security acted without any legal authority at all and move on to several constitutional challenges that the plaintiffs lost on. Easha also brings up an argument not made in the case: that the Secretary's actions were motivated by anti-Mexican animus. The episode ends with a few Trump nuggets.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.