Filed Date: Feb. 19, 2019
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
In 2018, President Trump repeatedly requested Congress appropriate 5.7 billion dollars for the construction of a southern border wall. On February 14th, 2019, Congress denied this request and appropriated only 1.375 billion dollars for the construction of a strip of border fencing. While President Trump signed this appropriations bill the following day, he simultaneously declared a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and directed the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to reallocate funds already appropriated by Congress for military operations and projects to the construction of the southern border wall.
On February 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs (Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition) brought a joint lawsuit against President Trump, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, and Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition are nonprofit organizations who, along with their members, derive benefits from the land along the southern border. They claim the construction of a border wall will impede their enjoyment of these benefits and cause them to divert resources. The Plaintiffs sued under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332; the Administrative Procedures 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. The plaintiffs brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern Division of California. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation represented the Southern Border Communities Coalition, while the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program represented the Sierra Club. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Wesmore.
The Plaintiffs lawsuit consists of both constitutional and statutory arguments. Congress has the exclusive authority to appropriate funds. While the President has authority to reallocate funding originally appropriated for military construction under the NEA, the Plaintiffs argue this is an inappropriate exercise of this authority because (1) this is not a national emergency, (2) the construction of a border wall is not a military construction project and (3) the construction of the border wall is not “necessary to support such use of the armed forces.” Therefore, the Plaintiffs argue the President’s declaration and subsequent direction to DHS and DOD to reallocate funds violates constitutional and statutory law. Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because they failed to review the environmental impacts of the border wall construction project at the earliest possible time in the planning process and to involve the public in this decision-making process.
On March 6, 2019, this case was related to California v. Trump. The case was then reassigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam. On March 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add further context of why they believed the President inappropriately exercised his authority. On February 26, 2019, the House of Representatives passed a disapproval resolution to terminate President Trump’s declaration of emergency per the National Emergencies Act. The Senate did the same on March 14th. However, the President quickly vetoed both resolutions on March 15th, which indicated to the Plaintiffs that the President was discounting the legislative branch.
On April 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. They moved for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the Defendants from taking action to build a border wall using Department of Defense funds while litigation continued. The Plaintiffs specifically asked the district court to prohibit the Defendants from constructing wall segments in three areas: Yuma Sector Projects 1 and 2, and El Paso Sector Project 1. On May 24, 2019, the district court denied and granted the preliminary injunction in part. The district court held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction based on the Defendants’ use of Section 8005, which allows the Department of Defense to transfer funds between projects because of “unforeseen military requirements.” The district court held that while the Defendants argued that their channeling of funds from military projects to build the border wall to stop drug trafficking was lawful, the border barrier was not an unforeseen military requirement. Moreover, the district court held that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm to their members’ aesthetic and recreational interests if the projects continued during the litigation. However, the district court denied the preliminary injunction per Section 2808, which allows the Secretary of Defense to undertake new military construction projects. The Plaintiffs argued that the Department of Defense should not be able to begin new construction projects during the litigation because it would harm the Plaintiffs’ mission as they would have to divert resources toward litigation. The district court held that a preliminary injunction was inappropriate because the Defendants had not even disclosed a plan for these new projects.
On May 29, 2019, the Defendants appealed the partial granting of the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. They also filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction because of the pending appellate proceedings. On May 30, the district court denied the motion to stay the preliminary injunction, holding that the Defendants were unlikely to win on appeal. Also on May 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved for a supplementary preliminary injunction for four more construction projects.
On June 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed for partial summary judgment. They asked the district court to declare that the Defendants unlawfully transferred Fiscal Year 2019 Department of Defense funds to fund the border wall construction (naming six specific construction projects). They also asked for the district court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from transferring funds unless in compliance with NEPA. On June 19, 2019, the Defendants filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The Defendants argued that enjoining the Department of Defense from construction projects would undermine its counternarcotics operations at the border, thus causing irreparable harm. On July 26, 2019, the Supreme Court stayed the permanent injunction pending the Defendants’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
On July 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit denied the Defendants’ appeal for the partial granting of the preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit held that the Defendants’ appeal was not likely to succeed because the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution requires Congress to authorize the use of Department of Treasury funds.
On October 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed another motion for partial summary judgment, reiterating their first motion, but adding 11 more projects it sought for the Defendants to stop constructing. On October 25th, 2019, the Defendants filed their second motion for partial summary judgment, reiterating its first motion and arguing that “aesthetic and recreational interests of Sierra Club members” was not enough to meet the irreparable harm standard. On December 11, 2019, the district court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part, while completely denying the Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The district court held that the Defendants’ use of military construction funds under Section 2808 for the border wall construction was unlawful. However, the district court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief beyond the specified eleven projects. Still, the district court stayed the permanent injunction pending the Defendants’ appeal.
The Defendants’ then appealed to the Ninth Circuit again on December 13, 2019. On June 26, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s December 11 decision, holding that the Sierra Club has thousands of members whose recreational and aesthetic activities would be harmed by building a border wall. The Ninth Circuit also held that the Executive Branch and the Defendants lacked the independent constitutional authority to transfer the Department of Defense funds, and their actions violated the Appropriations Clause. Thus, on July 31, 2020, the Supreme Court lifted the stay of the permanent injunction.
On August 7, 2020, the Defendants filed a writ of certiorari appealing the Ninth Circuit’s December 13 decision, and the Supreme Court granted the writ on October 19th, 2020. However, after President Biden was elected in November 2020, this case transformed. On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order, terminating the national emergency declared by President Trump. The Executive Order issued a Proclamation, which included plans to redirect the funds for the border wall, along with pausing all ongoing construction projects at the border. In light of this change, the district court, on February 17, 2021, ordered the parties to file a joint brief addressing how President Biden’s Proclamation would affect the case.
On April 15, 2021, the parties filed a joint brief, agreeing to stay further proceedings in light of President Biden’s Proclamation. On April 30, 2021, the Defendants notified the district court that they would cancel all ongoing southern border wall projects. On May 17, 2021, the district court issued an order to stay all litigation in light of the order. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated its previous rulings on July 2, 2021, and instructed the Ninth Circuit to do the same. The Supreme Court held that the district court should consider what further proceedings would be necessary and appropriate in light of the changed circumstances of the case. On September 13, 2021, both parties withdrew their then-pending district court motions for summary judgment and began settlement negotiations. On November 22, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated its previous rulings and remanded to the district court.
For the rest of 2021 until 2023, the parties filed joint status reports and engaged in extensive settlement discussions. On July 17, 2023, the parties reached a settlement agreement (the Agreement). The Agreement included provisions about the Defendants engaging in a 3-phase remediation process to restore the land used for border construction. It also required the Defendants to stop border construction using the Section 2808 funds and to restore the funding to their original military construction projects. The Agreement also included details about protecting large wildlife passages, opening stormwater gates, mitigating the impacts of the border construction, protecting endangered species, and more environmental remediation and mitigation. Per the Agreement, the Plaintiffs would dismiss their claims with prejudice, with the district court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement for a period of four years.
In March 2024, the District Court of the Southern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in a case brought by Texas and Missouri against Biden, General Land Office v. Biden. 722 F.Supp.3d 710. Texas and Missouri alleged that Biden’s Proclamation implicitly reflected a policy to not build border walls, and that such policy was contradictory to the $1.4 billion of funds authorized by Congress in 2020/2021 “for the construction of a barrier system along the southwest border.” The General Land court prohibited the federal government from using the funds for mitigation and remediation efforts, as they were meant for border construction. Shortly after the General Land decision, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that they would pause work on the mitigation and remediation efforts from the July 17 Agreement on March 14, 2024. Accordingly, the Sierra Club (Plaintiff) moved to intervene in General Land on April 14, 2024, arguing that the General Land decision went against the July 17 Agreement. They also sent the Defendants a formal notice of breach.
In January 2025, President Trump once again took office. On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Sierra Club intervenors in General Land, holding that the General Land injunction could threaten the Settlement Agreement. On September 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion to enforce the Agreement, alleging that the Defendants were in breach because they used the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021 funds for border construction, in violation of the Agreement. The Plaintiffs requested an immediate accounting of the funds and an order requiring the Defendants to set aside the funds for remediation and mediation during the pending litigation. On September 15, the Defendants filed their opposition motion.
On September 26, 2025, the district court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs’ motion for emergency relief to reserve the funding while the Plaintiffs pursued enforcement litigation. The court reasoned that the Plaintiffs took too long to file their motion, as the General Land decision came out in March 2024, but the Plaintiffs did not file their enforcement motion until September 4, 2025. Moreover, the court held that the Plaintiffs’ claim was unlikely to be successful because the Agreement only gave the Defendants a responsibility to fund remediation and mitigation efforts with available funds, but since the General Land decision effectively made the funds unavailable, the Defendants were not in breach. 2025 WL 2956000.
As of March 12, 2026, the dispute about the enforcement of the Agreement is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Mackenzie Walz (3/11/2019)
Gregory Marsh (8/1/2020)
Ameya Kamani (3/6/2026)
State of California v. Trump, Northern District of California (2019)
Sierra Club v. Trump, Northern District of California (2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14559179/parties/sierra-club-v-trump/
Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Attorney, Cecillia D.
Attorney, Michael Shih,
Adams, Matthew Gordon (California)
Attorney, William Cooper,
Alito, Samuel A. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)
Breyer, Charles R. (California)
Collins, Daniel Paul (California)
Cousins, Nathanael M. (California)
Friedland, Michelle Taryn (California)
Gilliam, Haywood Stirling Jr. (California)
Kavanaugh, Brett M. (District of Columbia)
Roberts, John Glover Jr. (District of Columbia)
Bilford, Brian Jeffrey (California)
Bolton, Jonathan R. (California)
Cayaban, Michael P. (California)
Cho, Michelle Young (California)
Chuang, Christine (California)
Cole, David (District of Columbia)
Coppolino, Anthony J. (District of Columbia)
Ferguson, Andrew N. (California)
Glubiak, Zachary Ryland (California)
Haas, Alexander K (District of Columbia)
Hafetz, Jonathan L. (New York)
Johnson-Karp, Gabe (California)
Jones, Brittany Marie (California)
Kallen, Michelle S. (California)
Khandeshi, Sparsh S. (California)
Leslie, Heather Colleen (California)
Morrell, David Michael (District of Columbia)
Newman, Michael L. (California)
Ochoa, Edward Henry (California)
Pollack, Harrison M. (California)
Record, Brittany M.J. (California)
Restuccia, B. Eric (California)
Segura, Andre Ivan (California)
Sherman, Lee Isaac (California)
Stevenson, Shannon Wells (California)
Sun, Christine Patricia (California)
Sun, Christine Patricia (California)
Adams, Matthew Gordon (California)
Barbero, Megan (District of Columbia)
Battles, Benjamin Daniel (California)
Bernstein, Richard D. (District of Columbia)
Boyle, Joseph Andrew (District of Columbia)
Campion, Jacob Daniel (California)
Chapple, Margaret Quilter (California)
Clouse, Sarah E (District of Columbia)
Colangelo, Matthew (California)
Daughety, Samuel Franklin (District of Columbia)
DeFever, Jeanne Nicole (California)
Duggan, Jessica L (California)
Dunlap, Jeffrey Paul (California)
Eiswerth, Christopher A. (District of Columbia)
Espiritu, Nicholas David (California)
Feigenbaum, Jeremy (California)
Garcia, Matthew L. (California)
Garfield, Howard Michael (California)
Goitein, Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Golden-Krasner, Noah Marc (California)
Grantham, William G. (California)
Grogg, Adam Anderson (District of Columbia)
Guerra, Joseph R. (District of Columbia)
Hanner, Brooks Mckinly (District of Columbia)
Hartnett, Kathleen R (California)
Hoffmann, Keith David (California)
Hussein, Shaimaa M. (New York)
Joseph, Lawrence J (District of Columbia)
Kolodin, Zachary J. F. (New York)
Lafayette, Gary T (California)
Letter, Douglas (District of Columbia)
Mangi, Adeel Abdullah (New York)
McCabe, Gavin Geraghty (California)
Morse, Josephine T (District of Columbia)
Nakatsuji, Robert Tadao (California)
Phillips, Carter G (District of Columbia)
Richardson, James Everett (California)
Rodman, Lindsay Lyon (New York)
Rush, Caleb Andrew (California)
Schaeffer, Suzanne Rebecca (District of Columbia)
Seitz, Virginia A. (District of Columbia)
Shapiro, Kristin A (District of Columbia)
Singh, David Ramraj (California)
Sisney, Benjamin Paul (California)
Smith, Rachel Elizabeth (California)
Smith, Janelle M. (California)
Spector, Phillip Michael (Maryland)
Stern, Heidi Parry (California)
Sullivan, Justin James (California)
Tatelman, Todd B. (District of Columbia)
Tyler, Robert Henry (California)
Wadsworth, Clyde James (California)
Winthrop, Douglas Andrew (California)
Wright, Christian Douglas (California)
Wydra, Elizabeth B. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14559179/sierra-club-v-trump/
Last updated March 5, 2026, 3:37 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 19, 2019
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, non-profit organizations who derive benefits from land along the US-Mexico border.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
President of the United States
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of Homeland Security
Secretary of Treasury
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of California 4:19-cv-00892
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-16102
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-16300
Supreme Court of the United States 19-00060
Northern District of California 4:19-cv-00872
Northern District of California 19-00210
Northern District of California 19-00236
Northern District of California 19-00220
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-17501
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Sierra Club v. Trump, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/17141/ (last updated 3/6/2026).