Court cases regarding border security in united states

The border strategy is therefore anticipated to essentially promote America’s security, and provide both economic prosperity as well as national dominion. Based on the idea that America’s land, 7000 miles, in the boundary with Canada and Mexico comprises of inland waters as well as lakes around the state, the border laws will act as economic gateways, accounting for trillions dollars in revenue from both commerce and travelling activities yearly (Sutcliffe, pg. Besides, this has recently raised following Trump’s administration required to be passed in United States Supreme Court on allowing the construction of prototype wall in San Diego as well as replacing the existing 14 miles fencing in San Diego. After the declaration of a national emergency on February 15th based on funding for the construction of Southern America’s wall, has been triggered with a range wave of legal challenges.

According to Aziz Huq’s article published in Politico Magazine on Has, the Supreme Court Already Decided the Wall Case? gives insights regarding Trump’s wall case claiming that the Supreme Court is already passing Trump’s border law. The data from the same department today, however, indicates a decline of Border Patrol fright by 80 percent in the Southern Border since the year 2000. Since 2018, the number of families living in the border has also reduced. According to Huq, the reasons behind Supreme Court’s ruling of the issue involving Trump’s wall case might be wedged by; the president’s petition of a generally worded statute, the strategy used to define the rationalized control border issue, as well as the failure of meeting all conditions for the statute. According to Huq, this drives the Supreme Court to start by checking the wall’s statutory basis and conclude that the exercise has been approved valid by the political government departments.

The Supreme Court’s decision will therefore seemingly be on passing the border law, since the president’s aim on circling the Congress control, makes the declaration of emergency for establishing a wall that will benefit United States by ensuring security and effective control of trade, when the actual approach is based on banning travel, as well as fulfill a 2020 campaign motive (AZIZ, 2019). On deference judicial approaches, the court thereby held that he had given a misleading reason for the decision, hence the violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (AZIZ, 2019). Prior to this, the court’s majority didn’t keenly deal with the concept that Trump’s wall case was on prohibiting Muslim immigrants into the United States, that had been evidenced through his tweets and statements. The 5-4 decision of Supreme Court was based on the concept that the president’s actions on realms of immigration was due to Congress’ power that the president has been given, hence a defer to the ban explanation.

However, the power entitled to the presidency seat leads to violation of the United States’ constitution, when he is given a deference judicial approach in the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court. However, on the anticipated ruling of the Supreme Court should not give deference to Trump that marks as a cover for constitutional violation. Routledge, (2018): 22. Tierney, Meghan K. President Trump's Big, Beautiful Wall: Discrimination, Eminent Domain, and the Public Use Requirement.  Chi. Kent L.