The Independent View: Democrats Trying to Save TX Butterfly Sanctuary from Trump’s Wall Update

This is an update from a prior post.

On Feb. 14th, a Federal Judge had Dismissed the North American Butterfly Association’s Lawsuit against the Trump Administration, also Nullifying a Temporary Restraining Order filed earlier this week.

However, Elected Officials have been Paying Attention, and while the House and Senate Negotiated their Border Security Funding Package, one Democrat decided to Add some Important Language about the Issue to the Bill the President Signed.

Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-28th District) was able to Add Language to the Bill that would Prohibit “fencing at five major landmarks in the Rio Grande Valley.”

Those Landmarks are:

- The 100-Acre National Butterfly Center Preserve

- The Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park and Birdwatching Site

- The Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, already Technically Protected in last year’s Budget

- The La Lomita Historic Catholic Chapel, which had been Fighting the Border Wall

- A Section of Land that has been Earmarked to become the SpaceX Transportation Company’s “Commercial Spaceport”

The Excitement over this Revelation was Short-Lived, as the Trump Administration is now Arguing that, with Trump’s National Emergency Declaration, all bets are off, telling the Wall Street Journal that the “restrictions only applies to the $1.375 billion appropriated in that spending package, and that the other $6.625 Billion could be used without those restrictions.”

The Trump Administration has been as Opaque about where it actually Plans to Build this Wall.

But the Text of the Relevant Section of the Funding Bill, HJ Res 31, Title II, Sec 232, says “None of the funds made available by this Act or prior Acts are available for the construction of pedestrian fencing—“ and then goes on to List the 5 Areas including the Butterfly Sanctuary. So on the face of it, it looks like the Democrats managed to Protect the Butterflies from the Old Law too.

I think that the Courts would look Favorably upon an Argument that, given Congress’ Clear Statement of Intent, the Executive Branch cannot just Divert other Funding to Evade Congress’ Direct Instructions.