蜜聊直播

The 1996 specifically authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to construct physical barriers and roads along the border, a lawyer for Kristi Noem says in new filings in federal court. More to the point, that law authorizes the secretary to 鈥渨aive any legal requirements to ensure expeditious construction of border barriers and roads,鈥欌�� says Alexander Yun, the attorney.

Yun brushes aside claims by Tucson-based conservation groups, and Conservation CATalyst, that Congress acted illegally when it amended the law in 2005 to say the head of the agency can 鈥渨aive all legal requirements (that) such secretary, in the secretary鈥檚 sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads.鈥欌��

鈥淪uch theories have no credible basis in constitutional jurisprudence,鈥欌�� he told U.S. District Court Judge Angela Martinez. 鈥淎nd every court to hear such challenges has unambiguously upheld the constitutionality of the statute.鈥欌��

But Jean Su, attorney for the two conservation groups that sued, said that while there may be a basis for the original law, the current version amounts to 鈥渦nbridled 鈥� and unconstitutional 鈥� delegation of legislative authority.鈥欌��

Hanging in the balance are two stretches of border where Noem has waived all laws.

One is a five-mile stretch from Nogales east. The longer one, more than 33 miles, runs from the to the C.

The plans include 27 miles of new bollard walls 鈥� 30-foot-high barriers spaced four inches apart 鈥� to replace existing vehicle barriers, which the challengers say are generally permeable and do not block wildlife movement.

鈥淭he San Rafael Valley is a critical lifeline, connecting imperiled jaguars and ocelots to vital breeding populations in Sonora,鈥欌�� the lawsuit says. It also calls it a 鈥渃rucial corridor鈥欌�� for other species like black bears, pronghorn, mountain lions, white tailed deer, mule deer, javelinas, coyotes and bobcats 鈥渨ho rely on transboundary movement between to search for shelter, food, mates, and other vital resources.鈥欌��

鈥淭he 蜜聊直播 Border Wall Project would essentially be the death knell for jaguars in the United States, eliminating over 53 years-worth of jaguar conservation efforts,鈥欌�� Su told the court. She also said that it would wipe out agency, organizational and tribal efforts, 鈥渓eaving an irreplaceable void in the landscape that would be continuously felt by the communities who have lived beside them.鈥欌��

Then there are factors ranging from the erection of stadium lights to the use of water for concrete and dust suppression.

鈥淔inally, wall construction is planned to traverse the Santa Cruz River twice, which requires installing concrete foundation that disturbs water flows of this already imperiled river,鈥欌�� Su wrote.

So she wants Martinez to declare that Congress acted illegally in giving Noem total discretion to build what she wants without some guidance or limits on what laws the secretary gets to waive.

Yun, in his newly filed response, makes no reference to the future of the jaguars if the wall is erected. In fact, his 24-page response to the lawsuit makes no mention of jaguars 鈥� or any other animal 鈥� at all.

Instead, Yun told the judge the case revolves around the law.

He said the original 1996 law specifically required the Homeland Security secretary to construct reinforced fencing along 鈥渘ot less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective.鈥欌��

鈥淐ongress also gave the secretary the freedom to determine whether the placement of security items was 鈥榯he most appropriate means to achieve and maintain control over the international border,鈥� 鈥樷�� Yun said.

He acknowledged that the original statute limited the secretary to being able to override two specific laws: the and the . But Yun said that has since been expanded to 鈥渋nclude all legal requirements.鈥欌��

Yun also said that Congress clearly wanted to expedite matters, creating a 鈥渟treamlined system of judicial review鈥欌�� for any lawsuits challenging the secretary鈥檚 authority.

First, it gave the federal court 鈥渆xclusive jurisdiction鈥欌�� over these challenges. Potentially more significant, it limited those challenges to allegations of a constitutional violation.

And that鈥檚 just part of it.

He said legal challenges must be brought within 60 days. And the only way for someone unhappy with a trial judge鈥檚 decision to seek review is to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yun said Noem did not pick the San Rafael Valley at random for the new barriers.

鈥淭he secretary chose these sections because she determined that the Tucson Sector is an area of high illegal entry, with over 463,000 illegal aliens and thousands of pounds of illegal drugs apprehended in 2024,鈥欌�� he told the judge.

Beyond that, Yun told Martinez there鈥檚 no basis for the claim by the environmental groups that Congress, in giving Noem that authority, had abdicated its role of prioritizing between completing values when it comes to border security. In fact, he argued, Congress did its job and told the secretary exactly what is the priority.

鈥淏y placing no limitations on the kinds of laws that may be waived, Congress prioritized border security over any other values, such as environmental concerns,鈥欌�� Yun said. 鈥淭his prioritization is a clear mandate from Congress: construct barriers and roads at the border, and if another law impeded expeditious construction, the secretary may waive it.鈥欌��

Anyway, he said, Congress did set 鈥渕eaningful boundaries鈥欌�� on the authority given to Noem.

The first, said Yun, is geographic, with her ability to waive various other laws only in connection with construction 鈥渋n the vicinity of the United States border.鈥欌��

Second, he said, is that Noem can issue waivers only when 鈥渘ecessary to ensure expeditious construction鈥欌�� at those locations.

鈥淭he ample guidance provided in the IIRIRA (1996 law) is more than sufficient to constitute an intelligible principle and survive constitutional scrutiny,鈥欌�� Yum said.

No date has been set for a hearing.