Keep immigrants out of the U.S with a wall….Keep species off our planet with a wall

There was a recent court case sent to the Supreme Court pertaining to the proposed construction of a wall to mitigate immigration into the U.S. Grist columnists reported on the event and used an additional article as a source of further information.
Recently, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club have asked the Supreme Court to hear a case not entirely associated with the environment, but certainly including it. The two groups are protesting the REAL ID Act that gives “unprecedented and sweeping authority to waive any and all laws to expedite the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border”. Rather than bring the issue of environmental impact, something that is certainly a concern in the matter, the group has asked the Supreme Court to rule based upon the ideal of separation of power. Both groups believe that the implementation of the REAL ID Act gives the Homeland Security Secretary essentially the veto power over some bills. This veto ability combines a presidential role with a congressional one and therefore can not be part of our separated power structure. The president of Defenders of Wildlife described the case saying, “The issue here is not security vs. wildlife, but whether wildlife, sensitive environmental values and communities along the border will be given fair consideration in the decisions the government makes”. Even with a large number of amicus briefs, a case simply based upon an environmental argument is unlikely to be heard in the Supreme Court. If the court ruled on an environmental issue, precedent would be set either for or against the environmental ideal. Because of this, most justices would refrain from a case unless it met specific requirements that could be used to set a broad and empowering precedent such as the example set in Brown v. Board.
The executive director of the Sierra Club made an interesting comment that could be used as an argument for using precedent set in an earlier case: “Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act are part of America's enduring legal framework, and no agency or public official should be allowed to ignore them”. The laws and acts that the director refers to are ones that he would need to ignore or get rid of in order to build the wall. In U.S. v. Nixon, the decision set the precedent that government agencies, even the executive branch, are not above the law. When the Secretary of Homeland Security uses his veto power, he is acting above the law. If the precedent from the Nixon case can be applied, it would be even easier for environmentalists to win their argument. If pointing out the harm to the environment doesn’t work, they can point out the need to maintain a separation of power, and if that still does not convince the judges as an argument, they can show that the secretaries abilities allow him to act in a way that is above the law (something that is illegal based upon the precedent set in the Nixon case).
The Secretary of Homeland Security has utilized the REAL ID Act for three different situations in order to waive certain legislation. The first waiving of conflicting legislation came from the creation of a wall near San Diego the second came from removing barriers and replacing them with a wall in Arizona, and the final time came from constructing a wall within a national conservation area. The first two times the waiver was used, it seemed harmless, but if more and more of these waivers take place, the impact will be noticed and many are likely to begin protesting the secretary’s powers. It is interesting that when given power within government there is a potential to abuse it, but there is also the realization that too much abuse will result in retaliation and because of this those who have power often treat it with a fragile respect. In this case, the secretary might reach his limit with proposed legislation in Texas that would “bypass extensive opposition from local residents, elected leaders, business owners, and conservationists”. This sidestepping of the system reduces to zero the voice of those who are affected, and when individuals have no say in a decision they tend to retaliate. Let’s not forget our anger about not having the ability to influence British politics as a colony. Knowing that an argument for the support of their beliefs will not be attained simply through environmental sympathy, environmental activist groups must now develop different and “more relevant” arguments that may not even include the environment in order to have their issues addressed. Even when an individual is completely committed to a case because of its potential environmental impact, their ability to create a broader topic of persuasion and or class action suites insures the success of their goals.