The judge who issued an injunction to stop President Donald Trump’s border wall project on Friday has a secret that shows how biased he is.
The judge, Haywood Gilliam, issued the preliminary injunction that stopped the transfer of fund from other Department of defense projects.
The decision will likely be appealed in a battle that could go to the Supreme Court but it is what the judge, who was appointed by former President Obama, did not say that shows his bias, The Daily Caller reported.
Federal election records show the Obama-appointed judge gave $6,900 to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, made up of two $2,300 contributions to Obama for America and one $2,300 contribution to the Obama Victory Fund. Four years later, Gilliam donated $5,000 to Obama for America and $8,500 to the Obama Victory fund, for a total of $13,500. He also added a $4,500 donation to the Democratic National Committee in addition to $3,100 to the Covington and Burling LLP PAC from 2012 to 2014.
The Epoch Times, which first reported Gilliam’s political contribution history, noted the donations began in 2007, a year after Gilliam’s stint as assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of California, and ended after he began his U.S. district judgeship.
During his confirmation, Gilliam said he “would base my decisions solely on the facts of each case and the applicable precedent, without regard to any political ideology or motivation,” and that his personal views “would not interfere in any way with my ability to neutrally apply the law,” The Washington Examiner reported.
An injunction was issued on Friday to block the transfer of around $1 billion from other Defense Department programs to fund part of the border wall, The Hill reported.
California U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam, who was appointed by former President Obama, issued the order, which does not fully halt construction, but would limit additional border fencing to specific areas. It would also block the transfer of about $1 billion in Pentagon funds from various projects to pay for the construction of a wall.
Trump made an emergency declaration earlier this year to circumvent Congress and reallocate funding from the Defense Department to begin work on the wall.
The judge halted the Trump administration “from taking any action to construct a border barrier” using the reallocated Defense Department funds in parts of Arizona and Texas identified as Yuma Sector Project 1 and El Paso Sector Project 1.
Gillam argued “irreparable harm” would result if the administration were allowed to proceed while the case is pending.
“Because the Court has found that Plaintiffs are likely to show that Defendants’ actions exceeded their statutory authority, and that irreparable harm will result from . those actions, a preliminary injunction must issue pending a resolution of the merits of the case,” he said in court.
Gillam cited the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches outlined in the Constitution, and particularly Congress’s power of the purse, in making that determination.
“The position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds ‘without Congress’ does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” he wrote.