Case: State of California v. Trump

4:19-cv-00872 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 18, 2019

Closed Date: Aug. 2, 2023

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 2018, President Donald Trump asked Congress to appropriate $5.7 billion for construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. On February 14, 2019, Congress denied that request and instead appropriated only $1.375 billion. Although President Trump signed this appropriations bill, he simultaneously declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act, and directed the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and the Treasury to reallocate military and other funds in order to bui…

Five days later, on February 18, 2019, several states, including the State of California, responded by filing this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to prevent construction of the wall. They sued the president, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Treasury under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4332), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§701–706), the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. §1651), and the Declaratory Judgments Act (28 U.S.C. §2201), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Northern California, and ACLU of Texas, argued that the president’s attempt to fund the wall using the National Emergencies Act was a constitutional violation. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to control appropriations. Although Congress gave the president some authority under the National Emergencies Act, the plaintiffs argued that the Act was never intended to allow the president to circumvent explicit appropriations decisions of Congress. His actions were therefore a violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Statutorily, the plaintiffs argued that funding the wall was an inappropriate use of the National Emergencies Act because (a) there was no national emergency; (b) the border wall was not a military construction project, as required by the Act; and (c) the border wall was not “necessary to support…the armed forces.”

Finally, they alleged that the president and the defendant departments were violating the National Environmental Policy Act because they failed to review the environmental impacts of the border wall construction project.

The case was assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., who ordered it related to Sierra Club v. Trump on March 6, 2019.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 18, 2019. On April 4, they moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent construction along certain stretches of the border (Yuma Sector Projects 1 and 2, and El Paso Sector Project 1). The United States House of Representatives filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, and was permitted to present arguments at the preliminary injunction hearing held on May 17, 2019. On May 24, 2019, the court granted the preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and the Treasury from taking any action to build the wall using certain reallocated military funds. The injunction applied only to two of the three sectors requested by the plaintiffs (Yuma Sector Project 1 and El Paso Sector Project 1). 379 F. Supp. 3d 883.

On May 29, 2019, the government appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit and moved for the district court to stay the injunction pending appeal--a motion that the district court denied the following day. Also on May 29, the plaintiffs moved for a supplemental preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent construction along four additional stretches of the border (El Centro Project 1 and Tucson Sector Projects 1, 2, and 3).

In June 2019, both parties moved for partial summary judgment. On June 28, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and partially granted the plaintiffs.’ It declared that the defendants’ use of certain military funds to build the wall in the disputed sectors was unlawful and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from using those funds to build in those sectors. The court certified its judgment for immediate appeal, but declined to stay the injunction pending appeal. 2019 WL 2715422. The following week, on July 3, the Ninth Circuit denied the defendants’ motion to stay the injunction, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate that they were likely succeed on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, that the equitable balances of harm did not warrant a stay, and that the public interest weighed against staying the injunction. 929 F.3d 670.

Later that month, on July 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled the district court and the Ninth Circuit, granting a stay of the injunction pending completion of the appeal in the Ninth Circuit. 140 S.Ct. 1.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on some issues on October 11, 2019. Like the June 28, 2019 ruling, the issues in dispute here regarded the legality of reallocating funds for wall construction; however, this motion dealt with a different source of funds, and covered more segments of the border. The government similarly moved for summary judgment on October 25, 2019. The House of Representatives again filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs, and was again allowed to present argument. A hearing on summary judgment took place on November 20, 2019, after which the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on December 11, 2019, denying the government’s motion. Like on June 28, 2019, it ruled that it was unlawful for the government to use certain reallocated funds for construction on the disputed border segments, and issued a permanent injunction. However, unlike in June, the district court immediately stayed its injunction pending appeal, citing the Supreme Court’s July 26 ruling.

On December 30, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay, also citing the Supreme Court’s ruling. It further explained that since, in El Paso County v. Trump, 407 F. Supp. 3d 655 (W.D. Tex. 2019), the Western District of Texas had issued a nationwide injunction on December 10, 2019, which covered the sections of wall at issue in this case, lifting the stay would have no practical effect.

On February 5, 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims regarding border wall funding reallocated from yet another source (the Treasury Forfeiture Fund). In light of this dismissal, the court sought to close the case, since all of the plaintiffs’ claims had been resolved by summary judgment or voluntary dismissal. The parties jointly requested that the case remain open: although the claims regarding fiscal year 2019’s appropriations had been resolved, they expected that similar disputes would arise regarding fiscal year 2020’s budget. The fiscal year 2020 dispute, however, was assigned to another case, California v. Trump, filed by the plaintiffs on February 28, 2020 (docket number 4:20-cv-01563. The two cases were ordered related on March 4, 2020.

On June 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s June 28, 2019 ruling, including the permanent injunction. However, due to the Supreme Court’s July 26, 2019 order, the injunction remained stayed until the government’s appeal to the Supreme Court was either decided or rejected. The Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for writ of certiorari on October 19, 2020, but on June 11, 2021, the petitioners filed a motion to vacate and remand: President Biden issued a Proclamation terminating the declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, pausing construction and obligation of funds for border wall projects, and directing various Executive Branch agencies to develop a plan for redirection of funds concerning the southern border wall. The parties agreed to stay further proceedings in the district court cases to allow the defendants to develop the plan called for by the President’s Proclamation.

President Biden announced that taxpayer dollars would no longer be diverted to construct a border wall, ordering the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to immediately pause work on the border-wall construction and to develop a plan redirecting the funds that were previously allocated to construct the southern border wall. On July 2, 2021, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to direct the district courts to vacate its judgments.

On June 13, 2023, the district issued an order acknowledging the parties’ efforts to reach a settlement and directed them to file a joint status report addressing the status of the parties’ settlement discussions and, if necessary, any further proceedings in these cases. The parties never filed this joint status report, and instead began filing motions to dismiss the claims in the weeks following this order. On June 22, 2023, the district court dismissed with prejudice the State of Virginia’s claims against the defendants. On July 17, 2023, the district court dismissed with prejudice all claims except the State of Wisconsin’s claims against the defendants. On August 2, 2023, the district court dismissed with prejudice the State of Wisconsin’s claims against the defendants, thereby rendering all of the cases closed.

	Document
4:19-cv-00872 4:20-cv-01494 4:19-cv-00892	Docket [PACER]	April 29, 2020	April 29, 2020 Docket
4:20-cv-01494 4:19-cv-00892	Docket [PACER] Sierra Club v. Trump	June 5, 2020	June 5, 2020 Docket
4:19-cv-00872 4:20-cv-01494 4:19-cv-00892 0:19-16102 0:19-17501 0:19-16300 0:19-00060 0:20-00138	Docket [PACER] Sierra Club v. Trump et al	Oct. 26, 2020	Oct. 26, 2020 Docket
1 4:19-cv-00872	Complaint	Feb. 18, 2019	Feb. 18, 2019 Complaint
47 4:19-cv-00872	First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	March 13, 2019	March 13, 2019 Complaint
71 4:19-cv-00872	Consent Motion for Leave to File Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives as Amicus Curiae	April 12, 2019	April 12, 2019 Pleading / Motion / Brief
165 4:19-cv-00872	Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction	May 24, 2019	May 24, 2019 Order/Opinion 379 F.Supp.3d 928
185 4:19-cv-00872	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Denying Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Certifying Judgment for Appeal	June 28, 2019	June 28, 2019 Order/Opinion 2019 WL 2715421
186 4:19-cv-00872	Judgment	June 28, 2019	June 28, 2019 Order/Opinion
257 4:19-cv-00872	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment	Dec. 11, 2019	Dec. 11, 2019 Order/Opinion 407 F.Supp.3d 869

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-13100729.). Filed byState of New York, State of Minnesota, State of Colorado, State of California, Dana Nessel, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Connecticut, State of New Mexico, State of Oregon, State of New Jersey, State of Delaware, State of Nevada, State of Hawaii, Commonwealth of Virginia. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sherman, Lee) (Filed on 2/18/2019) Modified on 2/19/2019 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 2/19/2019 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/18/2019) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP	Feb. 18, 2019	Feb. 18, 2019 Clearinghouse
2	Proposed Summons. (Sherman, Lee) (Filed on 2/18/2019) (Entered: 02/18/2019)	Feb. 18, 2019	Feb. 18, 2019 RECAP
	Electronic Filing Error	Feb. 18, 2019	Feb. 18, 2019 PACER
	Electronic filing error. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 1 Complaint, filed by State of Delaware, State of Maine, State of Hawaii, D ana Nessel, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of California, State of New Jersey, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Oregon, State of Maryland, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Colorado Not a Civil Miscellaneous Case (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2019)	Feb. 18, 2019	Feb. 18, 2019 PACER
	Electronic filing error. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 1 Complaint, filed by State of Delaware, State of Maine, State of Hawaii, D ana Nessel, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of California, State of New Jersey, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Oregon, State of Maryland, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Colorado Attorney Lee Isaac Sherman does not represent all plaintiffs just the State of California Only. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2019)	Feb. 18, 2019	Feb. 18, 2019 PACER
3	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 3/5/2019. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 PACER
4	MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13101792.) filed by State of New Mexico. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Maestas, Tania) (Filed on 2/19/2019) Modified on 2/20/2019 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
5	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 5/14/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 5/21/2019 10:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 2/19/19. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
6	Summons Issued as to Department of Defense, David Bernhardt, Mark T. Esper, Steven T. Mnuchin, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Patrick M. Shanahan, Richard V. Spencer, Donald J. Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Treasury, United States of America, Heather Wilson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Process Clerk U.S. Attorney's Office. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
7	MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13102243.) filed by State of Maine. (Herman, Susan) (Filed on 2/19/2019) Modified on 2/20/2019 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
8	ORDER Granting Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte: granting 4 Application. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
9	MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13102823.) filed by State of Minnesota. (Campion, Jacob) (Filed on 2/19/2019) Modified on 2/20/2019 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
10	NOTICE of Appearance by Gavin Geraghty McCabe (McCabe, Gavin) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
11	Application for Refund, Receipt Number 26FGOHCE by Commonwealth of Virginia, Dana Nessel, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Delaware, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Maine, State of Maryland, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon. (Sherman, Lee) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
12	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13103252.) filed by State of Colorado. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Olson, Eric) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019) 1 Certificate of Good Standing View on PACER	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
13	NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Phillip Cayaban (Cayaban, Michael) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
14	ORDER Granting Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte: granting 7 Application. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 PACER
15	ORDER Granting Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte: granting 9 Application. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 PACER
16	ORDER Granting Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte: granting 12 Application. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 PACER
17	NOTICE of Appearance by Caleb Andrew Rush (Rush, Caleb) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)	Feb. 19, 2019	Feb. 19, 2019 RECAP
18	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by State of California.. (Sherman, Lee) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)	Feb. 20, 2019	Feb. 20, 2019 RECAP
19	CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now reassign this case to a District Judge because a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)	Feb. 20, 2019	Feb. 20, 2019 PACER
20	NOTICE of Appearance by Christine Chuang on behalf of Plaintiff State of California (Chuang, Christine) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)	Feb. 20, 2019	Feb. 20, 2019 RECAP
21	ORDER, Case reassigned to Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 2/20/19. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)	Feb. 20, 2019	Feb. 20, 2019 RECAP
22	NOTICE of Appearance by Edward Henry Ochoa as Counsel for Plaintiff State of California (Ochoa, Edward) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)	Feb. 20, 2019	Feb. 20, 2019 RECAP
23	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13107289.) filed by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Colangelo, Matthew) (Filed on 2/20/2019) (Entered: 02/20/2019)	Feb. 20, 2019	Feb. 20, 2019 PACER
24	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13110536.) filed by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Meyer, Amanda) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)	Feb. 21, 2019	Feb. 21, 2019 PACER
25	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13110771.) filed by State of Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing)(Lyons, David) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)	Feb. 21, 2019	Feb. 21, 2019 PACER
26	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13111002.) filed by State of Nevada. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Stern, Heidi) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)	Feb. 21, 2019	Feb. 21, 2019 PACER
27	Refund Status re 11 Application for Refund, APPROVED. (rghS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)	Feb. 21, 2019	Feb. 21, 2019 PACER
28	NOTICE of Appearance by James F. Zahradka, II on behalf of Plaintiff State of California (Zahradka, James) (Filed on 2/21/2019) (Entered: 02/21/2019)	Feb. 21, 2019	Feb. 21, 2019 PACER
29	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13113196.) filed by Commonwealth of Virginia. (Attachments: # 1 Good Standing Certificate)(Jones, Brittany) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019) 1 Good Standing Certificate View on PACER	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 PACER
	Electronic Filing Error	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 PACER
	Electronic filing error. REMINDER TO COUNSEL: In the future, please be sure that the case number is correctly reflected on your documents as 4:19-cv-00872- HSG . Re: 28 Notice of Appearance filed by State of California (jjbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) Modified on 2/22/2019 (jjbS, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 PACER
30	ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 23 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Colangelo, Matthew.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 RECAP
31	ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 24 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Meyer, Amanda. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 RECAP
32	ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 25 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Lyons, David. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 RECAP
33	ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 26 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Stern, Heidi. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 RECAP
34	CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOR REASSIGNED CIVIL CASE. Notice is hereby given that a Case Management Conference has been set for May 21, 2019, before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA. Case Management Statement due by May 14, 2019. Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. All future filings should reflect the case number as 4:19-cv-00872-HSG. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 PACER
35	ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 29 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Jones, Brittany.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)	Feb. 22, 2019	Feb. 22, 2019 RECAP

Case: State of California v. Trump

4:19-cv-00872 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details