You know what SCOTUS nerds want for Christmas? These words, in a federal court of appeals opinion:

We are aware that our decision conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Sierra Club v. Trump. That case involved a parallel challenge to the Government’s use of § 2808 funds to build the border wall. Nine states “alleged that the Section 2808 diversion of funds will result in economic losses, including lost tax revenues.” Addressing Wyoming, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that “[i]t may be appropriate to deny standing where a state claims only that ‘actions taken by United States Government agencies . . . injured a State’s economy and thereby caused a decline in general tax revenues.’” Nevertheless, the court concluded that the states’ alleged tax-loss injuries were “analogous to those in Wyoming v. Oklahoma.” The court held that the “injuries in the form of lost tax revenues resulting from the cancellation of specific military construction projects” were “direct” and therefore sufficient to support standing.

We do not agree with the holding in Sierra Club with regard to economic injury and decline to follow it.
 
El Paso County v. Trump, No. 19-51144 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2020) (footnotes omitted). 
 
This is the case about whether the Trump Administration can use certain funds appropriated for the Department of Defense to build the wall on the southern border. Held: the plaintiffs don’t have Article III standing.
 
Not a lot in the opinion about eminent domain law, mind you, but you takings mavens may still want to read through the case because the court laid out the details of the wall (always a topic at cocktail parties — even virtual cocktail parties — once others find out you do eminent domain). 
 
Will there be more, or will it moot out? Your guess is as good as ours.  
 
 

El Paso County v. Trump, No. 19-51144 (5th Cir. Dec. 4, 2020)