State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 110

MOTION for Leave to Present Argument in the Preliminary Injunction Hearing filed by United States House of Representatives. Responses due by 5/16/2019. Replies due by 5/23/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Letter, Douglas) (Filed on 5/2/2019) Modified on 5/3/2019 (jjbS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

Douglas N. Letter, General Counsel (D.C. Bar No. 253492)
Todd B. Tatelman, Deputy General Counsel (VA Bar No. 66008)
Megan Barbero, Associate General Counsel (MA Bar No. 668854)
Kristin A. Shapiro, Assistant General Counsel (D.C. Bar No. 1007010)

7

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]

8

Counsel for Amicus Curiae the United States House of Representatives

5
6

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

10
11
12

Case No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United
States, in his official capacity, et al.,
Defendants.

P.I. Hearing Date: May 17, 2019
Time: 10:00 AM
MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR
LEAVE TO PRESENT
ARGUMENT IN THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
HEARING

18
19

The United States House of Representatives respectfully requests leave to present

20

argument during the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which is currently

21

scheduled for May 17, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. ECF No. 63. This Court granted the House’s motion

22

for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae expressing the views of the House in support of

23

plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 72. As discussed below and in our

24

amicus brief, ECF No. 73, the House has a compelling institutional interest in the Court’s grant of

25

expedited relief to prohibit the Executive Branch defendants from spending federal funds without

26

a valid Congressional appropriation. Because the expenditures challenged here usurp the House’s

27

Article I legislative authority, the House has a distinct interest in this case and respectfully

28
1
MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
(4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

submits that its presentation of argument will aid the Court in its determination of the issues.

2

Plaintiffs do not oppose the House’s motion. Defendants take no position on this motion.

3

This suit arises out of the Executive Branch defendants’ expenditure of federal funds to

4

construct a wall along the southern border of the United States in violation of the Appropriations

5

Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional separation-of-powers principle. The

6

Appropriations Clause provides that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

7

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. This Clause vests

8

Congress with “exclusive power over the federal purse,” and it is “one of the most important

9

authorities allocated to Congress in the Constitution’s ‘necessary partition of power among the

10

several departments.’” U.S. Dep’t of the Navy v. FLRA, 665 F.3d 1339, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

11

(quoting The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison)).

12

As explained in our amicus brief, although Congress appropriated only $1.375 billion for

13

the construction of barriers along the southern border, the President announced that his

14

Administration would spend up to $8.1 billion. See ECF No. 73 at 7. The Administration claims

15

that it has statutory authority to expend those funds, including pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284. Id. at

16

1-2. Those arguments are incorrect, as plaintiffs and the House have argued: the cited statutory

17

provision provides no authority for the expenditures on a border wall. Absent a valid

18

Congressional appropriation, the defendants are violating the Appropriations Clause.

19

To protect its constitutional interests, the House has filed its own suit in the U.S. District

20

Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Administration’s expenditure of federal funds

21

under, inter alia, Section 284 to construct a border wall. See U.S. House of Representatives v.

22

Mnuchin, No. 19-cv-969 (D.D.C. April 5, 2019). The House has also sought a preliminary

23

injunction there and the district court has scheduled a hearing for May 24, 2019. To protect its

24

same constitutional interests, the House filed an amicus brief in this suit urging the Court to grant

25

the preliminary injunction.

26

As noted at the outset, because the actions by the Executive Branch defendants here go to

27

the very heart of an essential power of Congress, put in place by the Framers to protect the people

28

of the United States from unchecked actions by the Federal Government, the House has a unique
2
MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
(4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

interest in this matter. Accordingly, the House respectfully requests leave to present argument

2

during the hearing on the preliminary injunction.

3
4
5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the House’s motion for leave to present
argument in the preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for May 17, 2019.

6
Respectfully submitted,

7
8

/s/ Douglas N. Letter
DOUGLAS N. LETTER (D.C. Bar No. 253492)
General Counsel
TODD B. TATELMAN (VA Bar No. 66008)
Deputy General Counsel
MEGAN BARBERO (MA Bar No. 668854)
Associate General Counsel
KRISTIN A. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 1007010)
Assistant General Counsel

9
10
11
12
13
14

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES *
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]

15
16
17
18

Counsel for Amicus Curiae the United States House
of Representatives

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

*

Attorneys for the Office of General Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives are
“entitled, for the purpose of performing the counsel’s functions, to enter an appearance in any
proceeding before any court of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof
without compliance with any requirements for admission to practice before such court.” 2 U.S.C.
§ 5571.
3
MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
(4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I hereby certify that on May 2, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to be filed via the

3

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s CM/ECF system, which I understand

4

caused service on all registered parties.

5
6

/s/ Douglas N. Letter
Douglas N. Letter

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING
(4:19-cv-00872-HSG)