Ex-federal prosecutor says border wall debate has injected politics into the courts

Former federal prosecutor Joseph Moreno said on Wednesday that the debate over President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump: 'I will not let Iran have nuclear weapons' Rocket attack hits Baghdad's Green Zone amid escalating tensions: reports Buttigieg on Trump tweets: 'I don't care' MORE’s border wall — and his national emergency declaration — has brought a political debate into the U.S. court system.

“People have very strong feelings about this wall, and the president’s supporters feel adamant that this is good governance, that this is simply securing our border,” Moreno told Hill.TV’s Krystal Ball and Buck Sexton on “Rising.”

“Others feel that this is a waste of money, this is a boondoggle, and this can be accomplished in much better, smarter technological ways,” he continued.

“We’re injecting that political debate into now the courts, and you can’t help but sort of integrate the two because it will be injected with the politics and the very emotional feelings about this issue,” he said.

Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the U.S. southern border in order to secure the funds for his long-promised border wall. 

Critics have said the president declaring the emergency is a means of achieving a political goal and that there is no actual emergency at the border. 

Moreno said he could not think of a more politicized national emergency in recent history, adding that most emergency declarations typically address situations like health epidemics or hurricane relief.

“In modern history, I cannot think of an as controversial of an issue,” he said.

“It’s usually done to … address health epidemics and Congress cannot act quickly enough, so they’ll use money quickly to do something,” he continued. “Something that’s pretty noncontroversial that we would assume Congress would have approved anyway, but for the fact that we have to get it done faster, an emergency is declared.”

— Julia Manchester