Can the Defense Department Build a Border Wall?
If the President were to declare a national emergency in order to justify building a “wall” on the border with Mexico, there would be certain legal authorities that he could invoke to initiate construction operations.
But the scope of those legal authorities is uncertain and would almost certainly trigger litigation to challenge their application, the Congressional Research Service said last week.
“Whether these authorities — individually or in combination — extend to the construction of a border wall would present a reviewing court with several questions of first impression,” CRS said. See Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall?, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 10, 2019.
On the other hand, the National Emergencies Act has been effectively invoked on two previous occasions to authorize military construction activity overseas (by Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush), CRS said in another new publication. See Military Construction Funding in the Event of a National Emergency, CRS Insight, updated January 11, 2019.
Some other noteworthy new and updated publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Mexico’s Immigration Control Efforts, CRS In Focus, updated January 3, 2019
How a Government Shutdown Affects Government Contracts, CRS Legal Sidebar, January 10, 2019
Defense Primer: FY2018 Department of Defense Audit Results, CRS In Focus, updated January 9, 2019
New CRS Series: Introduction to Financial Services, CRS Insight, updated January 11, 2019
Federal Grand Jury Secrecy: Legal Principles and Implications for Congressional Oversight, January 10, 2019
U.S. Sanctions on Russia, updated January 11, 2019
Cluster Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress, updated January 7, 2019
U.S.-Proposed Missile Technology Control Regime Changes, CRS In Focus, January 10, 2019
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.