Whether ITRIRA § 102(c) violates the separation-of-powers, the non-delegation-doctrine, and the Presentment-Clause

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1103 note (“ITRIRA”), grants the Secretary of Homeland Security (“Secretary”) the authority to “waive all legal all federal, state, local, and tribal laws, regulations, and legal requirements deriving therefrom—that the Secretary, in the Secretary’s “sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads” in the vicinity of the U.S. borders. The statute permits only legal challenges alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and appellate review of a district court decision is available solely through a writ of certiorari to this Court with no circuit court review. Id. § 102(c)(2)(C). Further, ITRIRA § 102(c) prohibits any judicial review—whether federal or state—of the Secretary’s waiver decisions for failure to comply with statutory standards. Id. § 102(c)(2)(A). This action presents a constitutional challenge to the Secretary’s issuance of six waiver decisions, made pursuant to ITRIRA § 102(c) in 2018 and 2019, waiving more than forty federal laws—and all related state, local, and tribal laws, regulations, and legal requirements deriving therefrom—which are otherwise applicable to the construction of 145-miles of steel-bollard walls along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. The question presented is: Whether ITRIRA § 102(c)—which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security unfettered discretion to ii QUESTION PRESENTED—Continued waive all federal, and related state, local, and tribal laws, regulations, and legal requirements, and sets forth no standards or criteria to apply in determining whether such waiver is necessary for expeditious border wall the separation of powers, the non-delegation doctrine, and the Presentment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.