Three groups filed suit against the Trump administration on Feb. 29 in federal court over the administration's diversion of funds allocated to the Department of Defense for border wall construction. The Trump administration has announced its plan to use $3.6 billion in military construction funds and $2.5 billion in other military funds for wall construction. The administration is attempting to use these funds despite Congress' exclusive appropriation of $1.375 billion for border wall construction under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019. When President Trump signed the CAA into law, he also issued Proclamation 9844, declaring a national emergency along the southern border. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Sierra Club, and Southern Border Communities Coalition sued, asking the US District Court for the Northern District of California to block the diversion of the funds. They claim that as Congress did not appropriate the funds for border wall construction, the president's actions usurp the constitutional budget allocation powers of the Legislative Branch.

More than 3,000 farmers and residents of four rural municipalities in Mexico's northern state of Chihuahua clashed with Mexican National Guard troops on Feb. 4 in a protest over the federal government's plan to divert water from a dam into the Rio Grande for the use in the United States. Protesters from the municipalities of Camargo, La Cruz, Delicias and San Francisco de Conchos confronted troops guarding La Boquilla Dam on the Rio Conchos with the aim of occupying the facility and preventing the water diversion. The National Water Commission (Conagua) intends to open the sluices of the dam to divert hundreds of millions of cubic meters of water to the Rio Grande, in order to comply with a 1944 Water Treaty between Mexico and the US. Mexico has a 220-million-cubic-meter "water debt" to the US, but farmers say that the massive diversion will leave them with insufficient water.

President Trump plans to divert $7.2 billion from the Pentagon to go toward border wall construction this year, a sum five times greater than what Congress authorized in the 2020 budget last month, the Washington Post reported Jan. 13. This marks the second year in a row that Trump has sought to redirect money to the planned border wall from military construction projects and counter-narcotics funding. The administration will take $3.7 billion from military construction and $3.5 billion from counter-narcotics programs, according to figures obtained by the Post, compared to $3.6 billion and $2.5 billion last year, respectively.

A judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction Oct. 11 against President Donald Trump's proposed plan for funding the border wall, finding that it exceeds executive branch authority under the Appropriations Act. Trump issued a proclamation in February declaring a national emergency on the southern border of the US, as both a humanitarian and security crisis. El Paso County, Tex., and the Border Network for Human Rights sued to challenge the proclamation. Going further than previous rulings against the border wall plans, Judge David Briones specifically declared Trump's emergency proclamation to be "unlawful."  (Jurist, Politico, Oct. 11)

The US Supreme Court on Sept. 11 allowed enforcement of a policy that would deny asylum to Central American migrants who pass through another country en route to the US and fail to make a claim for protection there. US District Court Judge Jon Tigar blocked the new rule in July by issuing a nationwide injunction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently scaled back the order so that it only pertained to Ninth Circuit states, which include California and Arizona. In response to Judge Tigar's recent attempt to return his order to its original scope, the Trump administration requested that the Ninth Circuit temporarily stay the injunction. The Supreme Court's decision to grant the stay authorizes the Trump administration to proceed with nationwide implementation of the policy even though it is still being challenged in the lower courts.

A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Aug. 2 against the Trump administration's ban on asylum requests for people who illegally cross the border. The Trump administration issued the rule in late 2018, prohibiting migrants from applying for asylum except at legal US ports of entry. The rule was created in response to a presidential proclamation issued last November. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment to have this rule declared illegal under the Immigration & Nationality Act. They also argued the rule was improperly imposed under terms of the Administrative Procedures Act. They additionally asked for a class of asylum-seekers to be certified in the case. The government challenged each of these, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, fail on the merits, and that the court should not certify a class. The judge held that the rule is illegal under the Immigration & Nationality Act and certified a class for the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court on July 26 reversed a lower court decision that blocked President Trump from using $2.5 billion from military accounts to build a portion of his pledged border wall. The order lifts an injunction from a federal judge in a case brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition challenging Trump's February declaration of a national emergency to access more than $8 billion to build the wall. US District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Northern California issued the permanent injunction blocking the administration from accessing $2.5 billion in diverted military funds, finding that construction would cause "irreparable harm" to the challengers' interests at the border. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month declined to lift that injunction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority found that the administration had "made a sufficient showing at this stage" that the challengers do not have standing to block the diversion of the funds.

A US district court judge ruled on July 1 that the Department of Homeland Security cannot hold migrants seeking asylum indefinitely as was previously ordered by Attorney General William Barr. Judge Marsha Pechman, of the Western District of Washington in Seattle, held that section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits releasing on bond persons who have been found to have a credible fear of persecution in their home country, violates the US Constitution. Pechman's decision stated that the plaintiffs in the case, Padilla vs ICE, have established that asylum seekers have "a constitutionally protected interest in their liberty" and a "right to due process, which includes a hearing."