Last Tuesday, the entire country was surprised by the ruling of a judge of Hispanic origin that will allow the Trump Administration to wave several obstacles in its campaign to build its promised border wall.

District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a 100-page verdict that will allow the government to bypass various environmental laws and other regulations to begin the construction of a border wall, CNN reported.

Although the favorable ruling does not imply the construction of the wall will immediately begin - since financing strategies have yet to be defined - the Department of Homeland Security already has several prototypes that will be visited in the coming months by President Trump.

Curiel’s decision rejects the allegations of the state of California and several activist groups who denounced in their lawsuit the severe environmental effect that the construction of the wall would have in the area, especially in the path that would affect a nature reserve.

As explained by NBC San Diego, "the lawsuit argued that the administration overreached by waiving laws requiring environmental and other reviews before construction can begin."

For Curiel, however, the Department of Homeland Security wouldn’t have acted beyond its jurisdiction by authorizing the construction of the wall prototypes on the border between Tijuana and San Diego, citing a 2005 law granting the Department "broad powers to wave dozens of laws requiring environmental and other reviews, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act," the report continues.

The decision of this judge of Hispanic origin has been strongly criticized by those who believe that his ruling should be more oriented towards the Latino community. In his sentence, Curiel defended his position arguing:

"As fellow Indiana native Chief Justice Roberts observed in addressing a case surrounded by political disagreement: 'Court[s] are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.'"

 This response is also unexpected considering the path of the relationship between Curiel and President Trump, who during his campaign in 2016 accused the judge of issuing "biased" and "unfair" sentences when during the month of June Curiel supervised the lawsuits against the tycoon's university project in San Diego.

"Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. And he is not doing the right thing,” Trump said at a campaign rally in San Diego in 2016.

For the then-candidate, Curiel used his resources as a judge as retaliation for his anti-Latino campaign. For his part, the judge never commented on it, but his new sentence in favor of Trump’s border wall - and his nod to his nativism in Indiana - seem to want to show the President his professionalism and that, when it comes to justice, the United States still does not distinguish origin or race.