,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Texas landowner Plaintiffs file suit in DDC (as I suspected). They acknowledge that Section 284 allows construction of "fences" but not "border wall." assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5742… 
2/ The Plaintiffs face a big standing problem: would the funds used to seize their property come from: (1) the recently-enacted budget? (2) from Section 284? (3) from the emergency declaration? Controversy may not be ripe for latter two options.
3/ Indeed, all of the Plaintiffs received letters concerning possible condemnation *before* the emergency declaration. Presumably, those letters were sent to authority and appropriations that existed before today.
4/ This challenge, and many others, may be dismissed on ripeness grounds. The ability to spend the existing money sequentially could draw this litigation out over long periods of time.
5/ California's lawsuit also draws a distinction between a "border wall" and a "fence." This argument is not going to work. lawfareblog.com/document-16-st…
6/ Moreover, the NEPA claims are not yet ripe, and possibly will never be ripe. if the executive branch only constructs fences in Texas.
7/ I reached a similar conclusion. The emergency funding litigation can drag on for years as a distraction, while the other sources of funding can be used.
