Judge Trevor McFadden said the house lacked the challenge, and he did not believe the court should enter the fight between the president and Congress.
"The Court refuses to take sides in this struggle between the House of Representatives and the President," wrote McFadden Englisch: www.germnews.com/archive/eng/news…140005.html. that Congress should never sue the executive to protect its powers, "he added to Trump's government and representative, which has allied a federal judge with the Legislature.
Several House committees received positive decisions from federal judges last month when they received financial documents by Trump's accounting firm and by Deutsche Bank and Capital One as part of Democratic preloaded-led investigations.
McFadden's decision to effectively halt the House of Representatives' efforts to stop the border wall comes about when the White House and its critics pass over I argue about migration policy on the border between the US and Mexico A judge in California, the ei supervised a separate federal case, ceased financing, which was to go to the wall last month. Border communities and the Sierra Club will continue to question the constitutionality of Trump's financing of the Wall.
At the same time, public attention has focused on the cramped conditions in frontier prisons, while Trump has demanded more stringent restrictions. [1
Lawmakers, McFadden says, have more options than the court system to fight the President's proposals.
"Congress has several political arrows in it to counter perceived threats to its realm," he wrote. "These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House, as exemplified by the many other cases across the country calling into question the government's planned construction of the boundary wall."
He also said the ruling does not mean that Democrats should be afraid to challenge the White House in court.
"This case raises a narrow question about the proper role of the judiciary in settling disputes between the two other branches. Englisch: www.mjfriendship.de/en/index.php?op…80&Itemid=58 that Congress should never sue the executive to protect its powers, "he wrote the presidential national statement.
The lawsuit argues that Trump's decision to mobilize funds for the Wall violated the constitutional appropriation clause conferring on Congress the power to determine federal spending. It calls on McFadden to block spending on the Wall in addition to future transfers.
The lawsuit has received considerable support from former members of the Congress and former General Council members from both sides of the aisle.
A nonpartisan group of more than 100 former members of the House of Representatives signed an Amicus briefing stating, "Rarely in the history of our nation has the executive launched such an attack on the exclusive legislative powers of Congress."
"Without action by the Court to prevent the usurpation of Congressional authority by the administration, the uncontrolled expansion of the executive at the expense of the legislature will threaten our democracy," the Department of Justice praised the decision.
"The Court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives can not call on the judiciary to engage in political disputes, and can not use federal courts to reach legal disputes, what about the means that the Constitution has conferred on Congress Provides, can not reach. " a department spokesman said in a statement. "The ministry looks forward to continuing to defend the government's legitimate measures to deal with the crisis on the southern border."
This story has been updated.
Kate Sullivan of CNN contributed to this report.