Sixteen US states have filed a joint lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to requisition billions of dollars to build his border wall as an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. The suit alleges that Trump does not have the constitutional powers to appropriate funds required to build the wall he so desperately wants to construct along the US’ southern border, since Congress – not the president - ultimately has control of spending. The plaintiffs have framed the issue as presidential overreach, and the suit proposes to “protect [plaintiff states’] residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.” Also on rt.com Trump declares national emergency over border crisis “Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriate for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States – Mexico border,” the lawsuit, filed in the Federal District Court of San Francisco, reads. The states’ alliance accuses Trump of steering the nation “toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.” Trump declared his intentions last week to cobble together the funding for his wall out of a $600 million Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund for “law enforcement priorities,” a $2.5 billion military fund for drug interdiction, and a $3.6 billion military construction fund. California attorney general Xavier Becerra points out that Trump essentially shot himself in the foot while declaring the emergency when he said “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” Also on rt.com Victory, disaster or ‘fake’? America divided as Trump signs spending bill while declaring emergency Other states signing on to the suit include New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Michigan, Nevada, Delaware, and Maine – all Democrat-controlled, either through their governors, legislatures, attorneys general, or all three. After reluctantly ending the longest-ever government shutdown at 35 days with no wall money in sight, Trump ignominiously settled for $1.38 billion in “border security” funding to avert a second government shutdown last week, far less than the $5.7 billion he initially sought to fund his wall. With the emergency money, he will have a total of $8 billion for the construction. Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!<doc-sep>As I predicted, 16 states, led mostly by Open Border Democrats and the Radical Left, have filed a lawsuit in, of course, the 9th Circuit! California, the state that has wasted billions of dollars on their out of control Fast Train, with no hope of completion, seems in charge!<doc-sep>A coalition of 16 US states led by California sued President Donald Trump‘s administration on Monday over his decision to declare a national emergency to obtain funds for building a wall along the US-Mexico border. The lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Northern District of California came just days after Mr Trump invoked emergency powers on Friday after Congress declined to fulfill his request for $5.7bn to help build the wall that was his signature 2016 campaign promise. His move aims to let him spend money appropriated by Congress for other purposes. “Today, on Presidents Day, we take President Trump to court to block his misuse of presidential power,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “We are suing President Trump to stop him from unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress for the people of our states. For most of us, the Office of the Presidency is not a place for theatre, added Becerra, a Democrat. Three Texas landowners and an environmental group filed the first lawsuit against Mr Trump’s move on Friday, saying it violates the Constitution and would infringe on their property rights. Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Show all 15 1 /15 Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Federal workers and contractors rally against the partial federal government shutdown Getty Images Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures The US Capitol on the first morning of a partial government shutdown in Washington EPA Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Federal workers and contractors rally against the partial federal government shutdown Getty Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures President Trump speaks with children who called the North American Aerospace Defense Command Santa tracker in the State Dining Room of the White House. He earlier in the day, tweeted that he was 'all alone in the White House' waiting for Democrats to make a deal on border security EPA Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Furloughed federal workers pick up free food at a pop-up store of Kraft Heinz Getty Images Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Hundreds of federal workers and contractors rally against the partial federal government shutdown Getty Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Reuters Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures From left, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Dick Durbin and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi walk to speak to reporters after meeting with President Donald Trump about border security in the Situation Room of the White House. Trump declared he could keep parts of the government shut down for "months or even years" as he and Democratic leaders failed in a second closed-door meeting to resolve his demand for billions of dollars for a border wall with Mexico Evan Vucci AP Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Federal workers and contractors rally against the partial federal government shutdown Getty Images Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures A sign alerts visitors to the closure of the National Archives on the fifth day of a partial government shutdown EPA Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Hundreds of federal workers and contractors rally against the partial federal government shutdown Getty Images Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Visitors read signs announcing the closure of the White House Visitor Center EPA Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures President Donald Trump speaks during a round-table discussion on border security and safe communities with State, local, and community leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House Getty Images Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures A sign alerts visitors to the closure of the White House Visitor Center on the first day of a partial government shutdown EPA Trump shuts down US government over Mexico border wall – in pictures Furloughed federal workers show their IDs for entering a pop-up store of Kraft Heinz Getty Images The legal challenges could slow down Mr Trump’s efforts to build the wall, which he says is needed to check illegal immigration and drug trafficking, but will probably end up at the conservative-leaning US Supreme Court. In a budget deal passed by Congress to avert a second government shutdown, nearly $1.4bn was allocated towards border fencing. Mr Trump’s emergency order would give him an additional $6.7bn beyond what lawmakers authorised. In television interviews on Sunday and Monday, Mr Becerra said the lawsuit would use Mr Trump’s own words against him as evidence there is no national emergency to declare. Earlier, Mr Trump had said he knew that he did not need to declare an emergency to build the wall, a comment that could now undercut the government’s legal argument. “Presidents don’t go in and claim declarations of emergency for the purposes of raiding accounts because they weren’t able to get Congress to fund items,” Mr Becerra said on MSNBC. Reuters<doc-sep>Bloomberg (Bloomberg) -- Hedge funds often measure their investments in minutes, not decades; but for Anchorage Capital Group, its long-held stake in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. is proving that patience can also be profitable.The New York-based money manager stands to make roughly $2 billion on its investment in the film and TV producer, one that began almost 11 years ago with MGM in bankruptcy court. Amazon.com Inc. agreed to buy the company for $8.45 billion Wednesday, a price that includes just under $2 billion in debt.The deal is in many ways a vindication for Kevin Ulrich, the former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. trader who co-founded Anchorage in 2003 and was part of a group of distressed debt investors that took control of MGM as it went through the restructuring process. In recent years the stake looked to be an albatross for the fund, one that came with significant drama in its own right.Ulrich brought in and later fired a high-profile chief executive officer, resisted efforts by activist investor Carl Icahn to take control, and held out for a bigger payday after years of considering various exit strategies. By selling now, as demand for media content from entertainment and technology companies alike is booming, he’s proving his long-held faith in the investment was justified.“There was a lot of maneuvering, a lot of financial engineering,” said Steven Azarbad, chief investment officer at New York’s Maglan Capital, an MGM investor who sold his shares four years ago. “But they’ve done great.”A representative for Anchorage declined to comment.When Ulrich first invested in MGM, he was new to Hollywood. He helped pick Gary Barber, a South African-born producer of films such as “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” as chief executive officer of the storied but debt-laden studio. Barber brought to the table a shrewd business sense, and connections into a world Ulrich long admired from afar.Barber shepherded MGM’s development of “The Hobbit” franchise, a co-production with Warner Bros., that became a global smash hit. He helmed the release of the James Bond film, “Skyfall,” which generated over $1 billion at the box office, and he revived the studio’s work in television. Barber also brokered a deal to bring on TV super producer Mark Burnett, which gave MGM access to reality show hits like “Survivor” and “The Apprentice,” but would ultimately become personally troublesome.In 2012 the company bought back Icahn’s stock for $590 million. It also filed paperwork for a possible public offering of shares, and considered other options, such as a sale.As Barber boosted MGM’s film and TV pipeline, Ulrich was increasingly entranced by the allure of Hollywood. He became a regular at movie premieres in Los Angeles and New York, and frequented industry parties in the Hamptons and elsewhere. He became active in creative decisions after becoming chair of MGM’s board -- somewhat unusual for a non-executive lacking Hollywood experience -- even getting involved with business granularities like casting.Growing RiftBut over the following years a rift began to open up between Barber and Ulrich. When it was time to renew Barber’s contract in 2017, Ulrich conducted an extensive search for a new CEO. When it ended, he ultimately chose to sign Barber to a new five-year deal. Yet around the same time, the pair split on whether to sell the company, with Ulrich wanting to hang on to the studio and Barber saying it was time to find a buyer.The company would hold buyout talks with Apple Inc. as well as Chinese investors that would ultimately prove fruitless.Only months after renewing Barber’s deal, Ulrich fired him. The shock departure meant the company had to pay Barber for five years of salary and buy out his equity, a package totaling $260 million. In the three years since Barber left, Ulrich hasn’t replaced him, instead operating an “office of the chief executive officer,” comprised of various people that each have their personal vision for MGM.Barber declined to comment via his spokesperson.Bounce BackAfter the initial period of success following the restructuring, the gains became harder to come by, as they did in Anchorage’s overall credit-focused business. Two senior managers left the firm in January 2020, and another in November. Anchorage’s flagship strategy, with about $8.5 billion under management, returned just 0.6% in 2018, 1.5% in 2019 and 4.4% in 2020, according to people familiar with the matter.In December, MGM hired investment bankers for a potential sale.MGM only released one film in theaters in 2020. Its biggest potential hit, the latest Bond film, “No Time to Die,” was pushed from last year to this October as a result of the pandemic.Yet the value of MGM’s library rose as everyone from media companies to technology giants have sought to build video streaming platforms that can compete with industry leader Netflix Inc. Earnings jumped 48% last year, to about $307 million, even as sales declined.Anchorage holds a roughly 30% stake in MGM, worth about $2.5 billion in the sale, said people with knowledge of the matter. Anchorage invested around $500 million in the company more than a decade ago. Including the MGM stake, Anchorage’s flagship fund is up 18% this year, the people added. The fund has gained about 8% in 2021 not counting the studio.More stories like this are available on bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.<doc-sep>
A vendor packs up his cart for the day as the border wall sits in the distance along the beach in Tijuana, Mexico. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull) A vendor packs up his cart for the day as the border wall sits in the distance along the beach in Tijuana, Mexico. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull) Written by Charlie Savage and Robert Pear A coalition of 16 Democratic-controlled states, including California and New York, on Monday, challenged President Donald Trump in court over his plan to use emergency powers to spend billions of dollars on his border wall. The lawsuit is part of a constitutional confrontation that Trump set off on Friday when he declared that he would spend billions of dollars more on border barriers than Congress had granted him. The clash raises questions over congressional control of spending, the scope of emergency powers granted to the president, and how far the courts are willing to go to settle such a dispute. The suit, filed in US District Court in San Francisco, argues that the president does not have the power to divert funds for constructing a wall along the Mexican border because it is Congress that controls spending. Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, said in an interview that the president himself had undercut his argument that there was an emergency in the border. “Probably the best evidence is the president’s own words,” he said, referring to Trump’s speech on Feb. 15 announcing his plan: “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., says that the plaintiff states are going to court to protect their residents, natural resources and economic interests. “Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border,” the lawsuit says. Legal specialists expected the Justice Department to urge a court not to consider facts about the border or Trump’s words, but rather to defer to the president’s decision. The courts have a long history of being reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the president’s about a security threat. The Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuits. Trump has said he expected to be sued, but would eventually prevail before the Supreme Court.