Supreme Court rejects request to hear environmental challenge to Trump's border wall construction

[Geee]

Washington Examiner

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from a trio of conservation and environmental groups seeking to block construction of President Trump's wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The justices declined to consider the groups' appeal of a lower court ruling that paved the way for the federal government to begin replacing border fencing in two locations and building wall prototypes. 

The judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, rejected the groups’ challenge to a 1996 federal law that gives the government the power to waive environmental laws to more quickly begin work on a wall. The Department of Homeland Security sought to sidestep the laws as it pursued the projects related to construction of the border wall.

[Draggingtree]

33 minutes ago, Geee said:

Washington Examiner

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from a trio of conservation and environmental groups seeking to block construction of President Trump's wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The justices declined to consider the groups' appeal of a lower court ruling that paved the way for the federal government to begin replacing border fencing in two locations and building wall prototypes. 

The judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, rejected the groups’ challenge to a 1996 federal law that gives the government the power to waive environmental laws to more quickly begin work on a wall. The Department of Homeland Security sought to sidestep the laws as it pursued the projects related to construction of the border wall.

[Valin]

In Addition.................

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Free Speech in Lawyer Lawsuit

Mary Lou Lang
December 3, 2018

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of free speech, throwing out a lower court ruling that allows states to force lawyers to subsidize state bar associations and their political activities.

The justices ordered the U.S. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision in Fleck v. Wetch in light of the Janus case in which SCOTUS ruled mandating union fees as a condition of employment violates workers' free speech rights.

"This is an important first step towards extending Janus protections to attorneys," said Goldwater Institute senior attorney Jacob Huebert, who was on the legal team that won the Janus case. "The same principles apply here that applied there: The government can't take people's money to pay for other people's political speech without asking first."

Arnold Fleck, a North Dakota lawyer, filed suit in 2015 to challenge a law requiring North Dakota attorneys to join the state bar association and pay member dues that are used to support political activities. Fleck was in the same position as the teachers in the Janus case—forced to subsidize political activities he did not support.

(Snip)