Do Courts Have the ‘Jurisdiction’ to Hear Lawsuits on Trump’s National Emergency Declaration?

President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill on Friday to avert another government shutdown while at the same time declaring a national emergency at the border.

While many argue that national emergencies have been declared in the past by Presidents, Trump’s national emergency declaration brings with it the additional issue of whether a President can reallocate funds already assigned by Congress for a particular purpose.

The liberal Left is already objecting to the declaration of a national emergency by the filing of a lawsuit on Friday with more lawsuits promised to come in the near future.

Some also believe that an official “rejection” by Congress of the national emergency is yet to come.

Daniel Horowitz, senior editor of a conservative news organization, argued that “no judge has jurisdiction to erase our borders” and many others, including the ACLU, don’t have standing to bring a lawsuit against Trump’s emergency declaration.

Not according to some judges.

Case in point, an Obama-appointed federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently ruled that Trump’s order requiring those seeking asylum to enter at a point of entry, could be temporarily enjoined.

Horowitz argued that the judge:

“…has no jurisdiction over immigration, has no jurisdiction over national security, has no jurisdiction over the border, violated endless settled law, violated Article II powers, violated Article I delegated authority, and broke every sane ruling on Article III standing that differentiates a court from a legislature.”

If nothing else, the ruling by the judge is an indication that at least some judges will be willing to grant plaintiffs’ standing and declare their own authority to hear cases regarding Trump’s national emergency declaration, eventually forcing him to defend his executive authority before the U.S. Supreme Court.