Trump up against a wall

Legal battles ahead for US president after national emergency call

President Donald Trump’s declaration of an emergency to build a border wall is expected to draw legal challenges that could easily escalate into a landmark test of the balance of power between the White House and Congress.

Legal experts said it was “unprecedented” for a president to use his emergency powers to overcome Congress’s refusal to fund his wishes, in this case a barrier on the US-Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants.

They also questioned Trump’s categorisation of the immigration issue as a national emergency and his tapping military funds for a non-military project.

“We will not stand for this abuse of power and will fight back with every legal tool at our disposal,” said New York state Attorney General Letitia James, the first to announce a challenge.

“Declaring a national emergency without legitimate cause could create a constitutional crisis.”

Trump said he expected a legal fight, predicting he would prevail.

“We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued,” Trump said. “Then we will end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will get a fair shake, and we’ll win in the Supreme Court.”

Trump made the declaration based on the 1976 National Emergencies Act after Congress refused to allocate his requested US$5.7bil (RM23.3bil) for a wall in a spending bill.

The White House says the emergency order empowers it to pull around US$6.6bil (RM27bil) from other sources, mostly already-allocated funds in the Defence Department Budget.

Democrats accused the president of an unconstitutional power grab.

It is a precedent-setting move, said American University Law Professor Jennifer Daskal, adding that the National Emergencies Act had “never been used in that way, for good reason.”

Critics of the move warn that it opens the door for other presidents to call on the legislation whenever they fail to get their way with Congress. A frustrated Democratic president might some day invoke the act to get funds to fight ongoing “emergencies” of climate change and gun proliferation.

The White House dismissed this argument, underscoring how a court showdown might proceed.

“This actually creates zero precedent. This is authority given to the president in law already,” said acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.