State of California v. Trump, 062620 FED9, 19-16299

Docket Nº:19-16299, 19-16336
Opinion Judge:THOMAS, CHIEF JUDGE
Party Name:State of California; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; State of Hawaii; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of New Jersey; State of New Mexico; State of Nevada; State of New York; State of Oregon; Commonwealth of Virginia; State of Illinois; State of Maryland; Dana Nessel, Attorney General, on Behalf of the ...
Attorney:H. Thomas Byron III (argued), Anne Murphy, and Courtney L. Dixon, Appellate Staff; Hashim M. Mooppan and James M. Burnham, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellan...
Judge Panel:Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Kim McLane Wardlaw and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges. COLLINS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Case Date:June 26, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

State of California; State of Colorado; State of Connecticut; State of Delaware; State of Hawaii; State of Maine; State of Minnesota; State of New Jersey; State of New Mexico; State of Nevada; State of New York; State of Oregon; Commonwealth of Virginia; State of Illinois; State of Maryland; Dana Nessel, Attorney General, on Behalf of the People of Michigan; State of Wisconsin; State of Massachusetts; State of Vermont; State of Rhode Island, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; United States of America; United States Department of Defense; Mark T. Esper, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense; Ryan D. McCarthy, senior official performing the duties of the Secretary of the Army; Richard V. Spencer, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy; Heather Wilson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; United States Department of the Treasury; Steven Terner Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; U.S. Department of the Interior; David Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants.

State of California; State of New Mexico, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; United States of America; United States Department of Defense; Mark T. Esper, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense; Ryan D. McCarthy, senior official performing the duties of the Secretary of the Army; Richard V. Spencer, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy; Heather Wilson, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; United States Department of the Treasury; Steven Terner Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; U.S. Department of the Interior; David Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 19-16299, 19-16336

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 26, 2020

Argued and Submitted November 12, 2019 San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D.C. Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG, 4:19-cv-00872-HSG Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

H. Thomas Byron III (argued), Anne Murphy, and Courtney L. Dixon, Appellate Staff; Hashim M. Mooppan and James M. Burnham, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Dror Ladin (argued), Noor Zafar, Jonathan Hafetz, Hina Shamsi, and Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York; Cecillia D. Wang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, San Francisco, California; Mollie M. Lee and Christine P. Sun, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California Inc., San Francisco, California; David Donatti and Andre I. Segura, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Houston, Texas; Sanjay Narayan and Gloria D. Smith, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, Oakland, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Douglas N. Letter (argued), Todd B. Tatelman, Megan Barbero, Josephine Morse, and Kristin A. Shapiro, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.; Carter G. Phillips, Virginia A. Seitz, Joseph R. Guerra, and Christopher A. Eiswerth, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States House of Representatives.

James F. Zahradka II (argued), Brian J. Bilford, Sparsh S. Khandeshi, Heather C. Leslie, Lee I. Sherman, and Janelle M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General; Michael P. Cayaban, Christine Chuang, and Edward H. Ochoa, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General; Robert W. Byrne, Sally Magnani, and Michael L. Newman, Senior Assistant Attorneys General; Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Attorney General's Office, Oakland, California; Jennie Lusk, Civil Rights Bureau Chief; Nicholas M. Sydow, Civil Appellate Chief; Tania Maestas, Chief Deputy Attorney General; Hector Balderas, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico; for Amici Curiae States of California and New Mexico.

Christopher J. Hajec, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington, D.C.; Lawrence J. Joseph, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States Representative Andy Barr.

John W. Howard, George R. Wentz Jr., Richard Seamon, and D. Colton Boyles, Davillier Law Group LLC, Sandpoint, Idaho, for Amicus Curiae State of Arizona House of Representatives Federal Relations Committee.

Richard P. Hutchison, Landmark Legal Foundation, Kansas City, Missouri; Michael J. O'Neill and Matthew C. Forys, Landmark Legal Foundation, Leesburg, Virginia; for Amici Curiae Angel Families, Sabine Durden, Don Rosenberg, Brian McAnn, Judy Zeito, Maureen Mulroney, Maureen Laquerre, Dennis Bixby, and Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crimes.

Douglas A. Winthrop, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, California; Irvin B. Nathan, Robert N. Weiner, Andrew T. Tutt, Kaitlin Konkel, and Samuel F. Callahan, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amici Curiae Former Members of Congress.

Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, Brian R. Frazelle, and Ashwin P. Phatak, Constitutional Accountability Center, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Federal Courts Scholars.

Steven A. Zalesin, Adeel A. Mangi, and Amir Badat, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae 75 Religious Organizations.

Harold Hongju Koh, Peter Gruber Rule of Law Clinic, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut; Kathleen R. Hartnett, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, California; Phillip Spector, Messing & Spector LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; for Amici Curiae Former United States Government Officials.

Samuel F. Daughety and Suzanne R. Schaeffer, Dentons U.S. LLP, Washington, D.C.; Joshua O. Rees, Acting Attorney General, Tohono O'Odham Nation, Sells, Arizona; for Amicus Brief Tohono O'Odham Nation.

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Kim McLane Wardlaw and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY[*]

Appropriations

The panel affirmed the district court's judgment holding that budgetary transfers of funds for the construction of a wall on the southern border of the United States in California and New Mexico were not authorized under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019.

Section 8005 and Section 9002 of the Act (collectively "Section 8005") was invoked to transfer $2.5 billion of Department of Defense funds appropriated for other purposes to fund border wall construction. Sixteen states, including California and New Mexico, filed suit challenging the Executive Branch's funding of the border wall. The district court granted California and New Mexico's motion for partial summary judgment, and issued declaratory relief, holding the Section 8005 transfer of funds as to the El Centro and El Paso sectors unlawful.

The panel held that California and New Mexico established the requisite Article III standing to challenge the federal defendants' actions.

Concerning the injury in fact element of standing, the panel held that California and New Mexico alleged that the actions of the federal defendants will cause particularized and concrete injuries in fact to the environment and wildlife of their respective states as well as to their sovereign interests in enforcing their environmental laws. First, the panel held that California and New Mexico each provided sufficient evidence, if taken as true, that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that both states would suffer injuries in fact to their environmental interests, and in particular, to protect endangered species within their borders. Second, the panel also held that California and New Mexico demonstrated that border wall construction injured their quasi-sovereign interests by preventing them from enforcing their environmental laws.

Concerning the causation element for standing, the panel held that California alleged environmental and sovereign injuries that were fairly traceable to the federal defendants' conduct. The panel held that with respect to most of the environmental injuries, causation was apparent. The panel also concluded that the causation requirement was likewise satisfied for the injuries to California's and New Mexico's quasi-sovereign interests.

Concerning the redressability element of standing, the panel held that a ruling in California and New Mexico's favor would redress their harms. Without the Section 8005 funds, the Department of Defense would have inadequate funding to finance construction of the projects, and this would prevent both the alleged and environmental and sovereign injuries.

The panel held that California and New Mexico had the right to challenge the transfer of funds under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Specifically, the panel held that Section 8005 imposed certain obligations upon the Department of Defense, which it did not satisfy. The panel further held that California and New Mexico, as aggrieved parties, could pursue a remedy under the APA, as long as they fell within Section 8005's zone of interests. The panel held that California and New Mexico were suitable challengers because their interests were congruent with those of Congress and were not inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute. The panel concluded that California and New Mexico easily fell within the zone of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP