Filed Date: Sept. 14, 2017
Closed Date: April 5, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
This suit, filed on Sept. 14, 2017, challenged President Trump's authorization of the construction of a border wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. Plaintiffs, environmental advocacy organizations (Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund), sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to comply with existing laws and for taking actions beyond the scope of its authority. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
On Jan. 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) No. 13767, which directed DHS to "take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border." The EO cited as its authority the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996. IIRIRA § 102 allows the Secretary of DHS to "take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads ... in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States." Further, under the REAL ID Act of 2005, the Secretary may "waive all legal requirements [that the] Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.” IIRIRA also restricts judicial review of such action.
Despite this, plaintiffs argued that § 102 also limits the Secretary's discretion to issue waivers, and that defendants had here overstepped these limits. First, plaintiffs argued that the IIRIRA waiver provision is limited to "the installation of 'additional physical barriers and road[s]...in areas of high illegal entry,'" and does not authorize replacement of existing barriers and roads, construction of temporary prototype walls, or the construction of barriers and roads in areas that are not "of high illegal entry into the United States." Further, plaintiffs argued that the Secretary's authority to issue waivers had expired in 2008, and that Congress had never again granted this authority since 2005. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the Secretary did not explain how DHS had identified "high illegal entry" at the proposed border wall sites.
Plaintiffs asserted that DHS twice attempted to exercise this waiver, on Aug. 2 and Sept. 12, 2017, with respect to portions of the California border pursuant to the EO. In so doing, plaintiffs argued that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and various federal environmental statutes. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that the border wall would harm borderland wildlife areas and thus plaintiffs' members who frequented these areas.
Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, plaintiffs sought a declaration that the IIRIRA waiver provision did not apply to DHS's proposed activities pursuant to the EO, that the two California waivers did not comply with the IIRIRA waiver provision, and that both the California waivers and the IIRIRA provision itself violated the Presentment Clauses, the Nondelegation Doctrine, and the separation of powers doctrine.
The case was first assigned to Judge Jeffrey T. Miller and then reassigned to Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on Sept. 20. The Court also, on Sept. 15, granted plaintiffs' request to relate this case to another recent case filed by environmental groups challenging the border wall, Center for Biological Diversity v. DHS.
The parties jointly requested on Oct. 20 that this case be consolidated with Center for Biological Diversity and California v. U.S.. On Oct. 24, Judge Curiel granted the motion.
This case has been consolidated with Center for Biological Diversity v. DHS and continues at that page.
Summary Authors
Ava Morgenstern (10/29/2017)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6295027/parties/defenders-of-wildlife-v-duke/
Curiel, Gonzalo Paul (California)
Paben, Brett Michael (California)
CV, U S (California)
Eliseuson, Anthony Thomas (California)
Hanneken, Sarah Kathryn (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6295027/defenders-of-wildlife-v-duke/
Last updated April 21, 2025, 1:35 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 14, 2017
Closing Date: April 5, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
California environmental advocacy organizations whose members frequent the Mexico-U.S. borderlands
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: