U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a new lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration is violating the Constitution
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the government has a constitutional right to seek and use a national security court as part of its foreign policy decisions.
The court held that the president is not limited by the Constitution’s separation of powers to seek judges for national security cases or to conduct diplomacy abroad without Congressional approval.
“We have said that in the past and we will say it again,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.
“The President’s exercise of his delegated authority is consistent with the Constitution and does not violate the separation of power.”
The court found that the administration’s use of the NCSO to try to block an international terrorism case involving Saudi Arabia violates the Constitution, and said that the executive branch has “a constitutional duty to seek the advice and consent of the Senate.”
The government had argued that the NSC has authority to take judicial action in national security matters, including the court’s authority to order foreign nations to cooperate with the United States.
The administration said the court has the authority to intervene in national defense cases, but that it was not the agency’s job to decide what to do about a specific case.
The appeals court agreed that the court should have considered the issue.
“The President has broad powers under the Constitution to conduct foreign policy without Congressional review, and that authority includes the power to seek to appoint and remove judges to hear the nation’s national security challenges,” the court said.
“In this case, the NSSO does not seek the appointment or removal of judges, but rather it seeks to prevent the government from enforcing an order of a court that is not the NPS.”
The Trump administration had argued in the lawsuit that the judge who was overseeing the Saudi case is a member of the president’s foreign policy advisory board.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, who claimed that the case was being treated as a “national security case.”
The ACLU argued that a National Security Order, or NSE, is a presidential order that authorizes the president to conduct military actions overseas without congressional approval.
It said the NSE is an order that must be followed even if the court rejects the administration.
The White House initially argued that it is not bound by the law, but then reversed course and said it would have to comply with the law.
The ACLU said that a number of recent cases have made it clear that presidents cannot use the NCA to try and block international terrorism cases without Congressional consent.
The Supreme Court declined to hear that case.
The court has previously declined to review the constitutionality of NCAs.