State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 129

Brief of Amici Curiae Federal Courts Scholars in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed byErwin Chemerinsky, Michael C. Dorf, David A. Strauss, Stephen I. Vladeck. (Wydra, Elizabeth) (Filed on 5/9/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

ELIZABETH B. WYDRA (BAR NO. 218200)
BRIANNE J. GOROD
BRIAN R. FRAZELLE
ASHWIN P. PHATAK
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER
1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 501
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

7
8

Counsel for Amici Curiae Federal Courts Scholars

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

10
11
12
13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG
P.I. Hearing Date: May 17, 2019
Time: 10:00AM

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL
President of the United States, et al.,
COURTS SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
Defendants.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
______________________________________
SIERRA CLUB and SOUTHERN BORDER
COMMUNITIES COALITION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants.

26
27
28
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
2

Page

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................

iii

4

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................................

1

5

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................................

1

6

ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................

4

8

THIS COURT MAY GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF WHERE PLAINTIFFS
CHALLENGE ILLEGAL EXECUTIVE ACTION ...............................................................

4

9

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................

20

7

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ii
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1
2
3

Page(s)
CASES

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Abbott Labs. v. Gardner,
387 U.S. 136 (1967) ...............................................................................................

16

Am. Sch. of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty,
187 U.S. 94 (1902) .................................................................................................

10, 11

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) ...........................................................................................

2, 4, 5, 13

Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. v. MCorp Fin., Inc.,
502 U.S. 32 (1991) .................................................................................................

15, 16, 17

Bowen v. Michigan Acad. of Family Physicians,
476 U.S. 667 (1986) ...............................................................................................

2

Carroll v. Stafford,
44 U.S. (3 How.) 441 (1845) ..................................................................................

4, 10, 13

Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Reich,
74 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ...............................................................................

11, 14, 17

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. United States,
490 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................

17

Dames & Moore v. Regan,
453 U.S. 654 (1981) ...............................................................................................

12

Dart v. United States,
848 F.2d 217 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...............................................................................

14

Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc.,
527 U.S. 308 (1999) ...............................................................................................

2, 4

Harmon v. Brucker,
355 U.S. 579 (1958) ...............................................................................................

2, 11

Hawaii v. Trump,
138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ...........................................................................................

15

Hawaii v. Trump,
878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................

14

28

iii
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – cont’d

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Page(s)
Horizon Air Indus., Inc. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd.,
232 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................

18

Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Trans World Airlines,
839 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...............................................................................

18

Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes,
37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524 (1838) ..................................................................................

4, 9

King v. Baker,
3 Burrows 1266 ......................................................................................................

8

Land v. Dollar,
330 U.S. 731 (1947) ...............................................................................................

12

Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp.,
337 U.S. 682 (1949) ...............................................................................................

12

Leedom v. Kyne,
358 U.S. 184 (1958) ............................................................................................... 4, 15, 16, 18
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) .................................................................................

3, 7, 8, 9

Oestereich v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 11,
393 U.S. 233 (1968) ...............................................................................................

12

Pac. Mar. Ass’n v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.,
827 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 14, 17, 18, 19
Pawlett v. The Attorney Gen.,
Hardres 465, 145 Eng. Rep. 550 (Ex. 1668) ..........................................................

6

Payne v. Cent. Pac. Ry. Co.,
255 U.S. 228 (1921) ...............................................................................................

12

Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.,
54 U.S. (13 How.) 518 (1851) ................................................................................

5, 9

Rex v. Barker,
3 Burr. 1265, 97 Eng. Rep. 823 (K.B. 1762)..........................................................

3, 6

Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc.,
509 U.S. 155 (1993) ...............................................................................................

12

28

iv
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – cont’d

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Page(s)
Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. Payne,
259 U.S. 197 (1922) ...............................................................................................

12

Staacke v. U.S. Sec’y of Labor,
841 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................................................................

16, 18

Stark v. Wickard,
321 U.S. 288 (1944) ...............................................................................................

3, 12

The Case of Cardiffe Bridge,
1 Salk. 146, 91 Eng. Rep. 135 (K.B. 1701) ............................................................

6

United States v. Lee,
106 U.S. 196 (1882) ...............................................................................................

10

Vitarelli v. Seaton,
359 U.S. 535 (1959) ...............................................................................................

12

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
343 U.S. 579 (1952) ...............................................................................................

12

15
16

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS

17

5 U.S.C. § 559 ...............................................................................................................

4, 14

18

10 U.S.C. § 284 .............................................................................................................

13

19

10 U.S.C. § 2808 ...........................................................................................................

13

20

12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1) ..................................................................................................

17

21

28 U.S.C. § 1331 ...........................................................................................................

9

22

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019 ....................................................................

13

23

Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 11, 1 Stat. 73 ..............................................................

7, 9

24

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1 .........................................................................................

2, 7

25
26
27
28

BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
3 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1768)........................

8

v
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – cont’d

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Page(s)
Clark Byse & Joseph V. Fiocca, Section 1361 of the Mandamus and Venue Act of
1962 and “Nonstatutory” Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action, 81
Harv. L. Rev. 308 (1967) .........................................................................................

17

Armistead Mason Dobbie, Handbook of Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure (1928)

2, 5

Louis L. Jaffe, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77
Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1963) .............................................................................................

5, 6

Louis Jaffe & Edith Henderson, Judicial Review and the Rule of Law: Historical
Origins, 72 L.Q. Rev. 345 (1956) ............................................................................

2, 5, 13

H. Brent McKnight, How Then Shall We Reason, The Historical Setting of Equity, 45
Mercer L. Rev. 919 (1994) .....................................................................................
James E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity and the Right to Petition, 91 Nw. U. L. Rev.
899 (1997) ................................................................................................................
John F. Preis, In Defense of Implied Injunctive Relief in Constitutional Cases, 22 Wm. &
Mary Bill of Rts. J. 1 (2013) ..................................................................................
Jonathan R. Siegel, Suing the President: Nonstatutory Review Revisited, 97 Colum. L.
Rev. 1612 (1997) ....................................................................................................
1 Joseph Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence: As Administered in England and
America § 49 (12th ed. 1877) .................................................................................
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Att’y Gen.’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act
(1947) .....................................................................................................................

5
3, 5, 6
5, 7
8, 14
6
14

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

vi
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1

1
2
3

Amici curiae are leading scholars with expertise in the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Specifically, amici have expertise pertaining to the government’s argument that this Court cannot

4
5

hear this case because Plaintiffs have not pointed to a statutory cause of action. As amici know,

6

there is a long history of courts of equity hearing claims that executive branch officials have

7

exceeded their statutory power, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that redressing

8

such claims is within the equitable power of the federal courts. This case falls squarely within that

9

legal tradition and within Supreme Court precedent. Amici curiae are:

10



Michael C. Dorf, Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School



David A. Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law, Faculty
Director of the Jenner & Block Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic, University of
Chicago Law School



12

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law,
University of California, Berkeley Law



11

Stephen I. Vladeck, A. Dalton Cross Professor in Law, University of Texas School
of Law

13
14
15
16
17

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

18
19

On February 15, 2019, following months of trying to secure funding from Congress to

20

build a wall along the southern border, President Trump issued an order declaring a “national

21
22
23
24
25

emergency” and directing that funds Congress appropriated for other purposes be diverted to build
the wall. Plaintiffs challenge that order and its implementation, arguing that this diversion of funds
exceeds the President’s authority under various federal laws, and they seek a preliminary
injunction preventing this allegedly unlawful diversion of funds.

26
27
1

28

No person or entity other than amici and their counsel assisted in or made a monetary
contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
1
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

In response, the government argues, among other things, that Plaintiffs “do not identify

2

any private right of action in the statutes they challenge” or any other “cause of action.” Gov’t

3

Opp., Sierra Club, Dkt. No. 64 (“Gov’t Opp.”) 12.2 This argument ignores, however, what the

4
5

Supreme Court has made clear: that “[t]he ability to sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state

6

and federal officers is the creation of courts of equity, and reflects a long history of judicial review

7

of illegal executive action, tracing back to England.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc.,

8

135 S. Ct. 1378, 1384 (2015) (citing Louis Jaffe & Edith Henderson, Judicial Review and the Rule

9

of Law: Historical Origins, 72 L.Q. Rev. 345 (1956)). The Framers incorporated this established

10
11

understanding about the power of equitable courts to provide remedies in the absence of a common

12

law right when they defined the “judicial Power” to encompass “all Cases, in Law and Equity.”

13

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527

14

U.S. 308, 318 (1999) (“the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is the jurisdiction in equity

15

exercised by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the adoption of the Constitution”

16
17

(quoting Armistead Mason Dobbie, Handbook of Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure 660 (1928))).

18

As a result, “equitable relief . . . is traditionally available to enforce federal law,”

19

Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1385-86, and even in the absence of a statutory cause of action, the federal

20

courts possess the power to provide redress where the executive illegally exceeds its authority.

21

See Bowen v. Michigan Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 681 (1986) (“We ordinarily

22
23

presume that Congress intends the executive to obey its statutory commands and, accordingly, that

24

it expects the courts to grant relief when an executive agency violates such a command.”); Harmon

25

v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579, 581-82 (1958) (“Generally, judicial relief is available to one who has

26
27
28

2

The government does not make this argument in its opposition in California v. Trump,
No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG.
2
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

been injured by an act of a government official which is in excess of his express or implied

2

powers.”); Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 309-10 (1944) (“When Congress passes an Act

3

empowering administrative agencies to carry on governmental activities, the power of those

4
5
6

agencies is circumscribed by the authority granted,” and courts are available “to protect justiciable
individual rights against administrative action fairly beyond the granted powers.”).

7

Indeed, as the Supreme Court has explained, the judicial practice of providing equitable

8

redress when the executive engages in illegal action has deep roots in our legal tradition. Early

9

antecedents to modern equitable review go back to medieval England, where King Edward I

10
11

encouraged subjects to submit petitions for redress when relief was unavailable through the

12

common law. See James E. Pfander, Sovereign Immunity and the Right To Petition, 91 Nw. U. L.

13

Rev. 899, 909 (1997). By the seventeenth century, the King’s Bench permitted equitable relief,

14

including mandamus relief used to command officials to take certain action consistent with law.

15

See Rex v. Barker, 3 Burr. 1265, 1267, 97 Eng. Rep. 823, 824-25 (K.B. 1762) (mandamus “ought

16
17
18

to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in
justice and good government there ought to be one”).

19

In America, from the early days of the Republic, the Supreme Court has permitted such

20

equitable power to be used to restrain unlawful executive action. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.

21

(1 Cranch) 137 (1803), for example, the Supreme Court concluded that although no statute

22
23

expressly provided for review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to deliver Marbury’s

24

commission, “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual

25

to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Id. at 163. As the Court later

26

reiterated, “the power to enforce the performance of [an] act must rest somewhere, or it will present

27

a case which has often been said to involve a monstrous absurdity in a well organized government,

28

3
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

that there should be no remedy, although a clear and undeniable right should be shown to exist.”

2

Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 624 (1838).

3

The government argues that the availability of redress under the Administrative Procedure

4
5

Act (APA) precludes equitable relief here, but that is wrong. The APA did “not limit or repeal

6

additional requirements imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 559. And

7

courts “cannot lightly infer that Congress does not intend judicial protection of rights it confers

8

against agency action taken in excess of delegated powers.” Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184, 190

9

(1958). Thus, the Supreme Court and the lower courts have continued to permit suits to enjoin

10
11

illegal executive action even after the passage of the APA. As recently as 2015, the Supreme Court

12

reiterated that “in a proper case, relief may be given in a court of equity . . . to prevent an injurious

13

act by a public officer.” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1384 (quoting Carroll v. Stafford, 44 U.S. (3

14

How.) 441, 463 (1845)).

15

In short, from early English history to modern American precedent, courts have

16
17

consistently heard claims that executive branch officials exceeded their statutory power, without

18

requiring a statutory cause of action. This case is no different. Plaintiffs argue that the President

19

and his Administration are exceeding Congress’s grant of statutory authority when they attempt to

20

divert funds Congress appropriated for other purposes to build a border wall. This Court can and

21

should hear that claim on the merits.

22

ARGUMENT

23
24

THIS COURT MAY GRANT EQUITABLE
CHALLENGE ILLEGAL EXECUTIVE ACTION.

RELIEF

WHERE

PLAINTIFFS

25
26

1. As the Supreme Court has explained, “the equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is the

27

jurisdiction in equity exercised by the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the

28

adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act.” Grupo Mexicano,
4
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

527 U.S. at 318 (quoting Dobbie, supra, at 660); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.,

2

54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 563 (1851) (“since the organization of the government,” “[t]he usages of

3

the High Court of Chancery in England, whenever the jurisdiction is exercised, govern the

4
5

proceedings”). And at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original

6

Judiciary Act, there was already a “long history of judicial review of illegal executive action,

7

tracing back to England.” Armstrong, 135 S. Ct. at 1384 (citing Jaffe & Henderson, supra, at 345).

8

Indeed, the antecedents to modern equitable review go back to medieval England. At the

9

time, common law courts issued a “variety of standardized writs,” each of which specified a

10
11

“‘complete set of substantive, procedural, and evidentiary law, determining who has to do what to

12

obtain the unique remedy the writ specifies for particular circumstances.’” John F. Preis, In

13

Defense of Implied Injunctive Relief in Constitutional Cases, 22 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 1, 9

14

(2013) (quoting H. Brent McKnight, How Then Shall We Reason, The Historical Setting of Equity,

15

45 Mercer L. Rev. 919, 929 (1994)). However, by the fourteenth century, “Chancery had stopped

16
17

issuing new writs,” and the existing “[w]rits did not cover every injustice.” Id. at 10. Thus, the

18

Court of Chancery began issuing “new and distinct remedies for the violation of preexisting legal

19

rights,” id. at 12, often “creat[ing] a cause of action where none had existed before.” Id. at 20.

20
21

These equitable remedies included actions against the Crown. “Beginning with the reign
of Edward I, the English Crown encouraged subjects to seek relief unavailable at common law

22
23

through the submission of petitions for redress.” Pfander, supra, at 909; cf. Louis L. Jaffe, Suits

24

Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 6 (1963) (discussing

25

the ability to bring “property claims against the state,” which would have been unavailable at

26

common law). These so-called “‘petitions of right’” sought royal consent to bring claims grounded

27

in a legal right, which were then investigated by the Chancery, a body that would “hear the case, . . .

28

5
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

decide it on legal principles, and . . . render a judgment against the Crown.” Pfander, supra, at

2

909; see 1 Joseph Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence: As Administered in England and

3

America § 49, at 40 (12th ed. 1877) (equity jurisdiction exists where “a wrong is done, for which

4
5

there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy in the Courts of Common Law”). The existence

6

of these petitions was grounded in the view that “the king is the fountain and head of justice and

7

equity; and it shall not be presumed that he will be defective in either. And it would derogate from

8

the king’s honor to imagine, that what is equity against a common person should not be equity

9

against him.” Pawlett v. The Attorney Gen., Hardres 465, 145 Eng. Rep. 550 (Ex. 1668).

10
11

By the seventeenth century, the King’s Bench had developed equitable remedies that were

12

analogous to today’s remedies against illegal government action: the dual remedies of certiorari

13

and mandamus. See The Case of Cardiffe Bridge, 1 Salk. 146, 91 Eng. Rep. 135 (K.B. 1701)

14

(“[W]herever any new jurisdiction is erected, be it by private or public Act of Parliament, they are

15

subject to the inspections of this Court by writ of error, or by certiorari and mandamus.”).

16
17

Certiorari, the “more conservative” remedy, came “into action after the government . . . acted and

18

then only to correct and to keep action within bounds.” Jaffe, supra, at 16. Mandamus, by contrast,

19

was “used where government . . . simply refused to take action in the individual’s favor, whether

20

that action involve[d] conferring a positive benefit or an indirect threat.” Id. Moreover, mandamus

21

“operat[ed] directly on the government; it command[ed] an officer not as an individual but as a

22
23

functionary.” Id. As Lord Mansfield explained, mandamus “was introduced, to prevent disorder

24

from a failure of justice, and defect of police. Therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions

25

where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there

26

ought to be one.” Rex, 3 Burr. at 1267, 97 Eng. Rep. at 824-25.

27
28

6
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

In short, “[a]t the time of the American Founding, it was not uncommon for Chancery to

2

enforce the common law through equitable remedies even where the common law might not itself

3

make damages available.” Preis, supra, at 15. And those equitable remedies were often exercised

4
5

in response to illegal official action, including by the Crown itself.

6

2. When the Constitution’s Framers conferred on the federal courts the “judicial Power”

7

to decide “all Cases, in Law and Equity,” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1, and when the first Congress

8

gave the federal courts diversity jurisdiction over suits “in equity” in the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch.

9

20, § 11, 1 Stat. 73, 78, they incorporated this established understanding about the power of

10
11

equitable courts to provide redress for illegal state action in the absence of a common law remedy.

12

From the early days of the Republic, that equitable power was used to restrain unlawful

13

executive action. The most prominent early example is Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch)

14

137 (1803). Prior to that opinion’s most famous section—in which the Court held that the statute

15

giving it jurisdiction to issue original writs of mandamus to government officials was

16
17

unconstitutional—the Court considered whether William Marbury had “a right to the commission”

18

as Justice of the Peace, and whether, if the Court had jurisdiction, “the laws of his country afford

19

him a remedy” including “a mandamus issuing from [the Supreme] [C]ourt.” Id. at 154. On each

20

of those points, the Court answered in the affirmative. The case is therefore an early example of

21

the Supreme Court devising a remedy—mandamus relief in equity—for a legal wrong committed

22
23
24

by an executive officer despite the absence of an express cause of action permitting review of the
officer’s decision.

25

First, the Court concluded that because Marbury had a “commission . . . signed by the

26

President, and sealed by the secretary of state,” he was “appointed,” and the law gave him a “right

27

to hold [the office] for five years.” Id. at 162. Second, the Court concluded that the laws of the

28

7
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

country afforded Marbury a remedy to obtain that office. Importantly, “[n]o statute expressly

2

required the Secretary of State to deliver commissions to presidential appointees. Nor did any

3

statute provide an express cause of action for review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to

4
5

deliver up a document he possessed in his official capacity.” Jonathan R. Siegel, Suing the

6

President: Nonstatutory Review Revisited, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1612, 1630 (1997). Nonetheless,

7

the Court concluded that “[t]he very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every

8

individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Marbury, 5 U.S.

9

(1 Cranch) at 163; see id. (“[I]t is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right,

10
11

there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.” (quoting 3

12

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England *23 (1768))). That is because “[t]he

13

government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws,” and “[i]t

14

will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation

15

of a vested legal right.” Id. The Court acknowledged that there may be some “mere political act[s]”

16
17

for which there is “no remedy,” id. at 164, but the Court maintained that if “a specific duty is

18

assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally

19

clear that the individual who considers himself injured, has a right to resort to the laws of his

20

country for a remedy.” Id. at 166.

21

Finally, the Court concluded that it may issue a writ of mandamus to a cabinet secretary.

22
23

The Court noted a passage by Lord Mansfield in King v. Baker, 3 Burrows 1266, in which he said

24

that “[w]henever there is a right to execute an office, perform a service, or exercise a franchise

25

(more especially if it be in a matter of public concern, or attended with profit) and a person is kept

26

out of possession, or dispossessed of such right, and has no other specific legal remedy, the court

27

ought to assist by mandamus, upon reasons of justice.” Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 168-69.

28

8
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

This principle, the Court concluded, applies equally to executive officers.

2

appropriate for the failure of an officer to do an act “in the performance of which he is not placed

3

Mandamus is

under the particular direction of the President, and the performance of which the President cannot

4
5

lawfully forbid, and therefore is never presumed to have forbidden.” Id. at 171.3

6

The outcome in Marbury is mirrored in a number of other early Supreme Court cases. For

7

example, in Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524 (1838), the Court issued

8

a writ of mandamus requiring the Postmaster General to disburse certain credits to which the

9

plaintiffs claimed they were entitled by statute. According to the Court, this was a “prosecution

10
11

of a suit to enforce a right secured by a special act of congress, requiring of the postmaster general

12

the performance of a precise, definite, and specific act, plainly enjoyed by the law.” Id. at 624.

13

Thus, the Court reasoned, “the power to enforce the performance of the act must rest somewhere,

14

or it will present a case which has often been said to involve a monstrous absurdity in a well

15

organized government, that there should be no remedy, although a clear and undeniable right

16
17

should be shown to exist.” Id. The Court’s decision made clear that so long as the Court could

18

exercise subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it could provide a remedy. Id. at 623-24; see

19

Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. at 563 (“[T]here is no other limitation to the exercise of

20

a chancery jurisdiction by [American] courts, except the value of the matter in controversy, the

21

residence or character of the parties, or a claim which arises under a law of the United States. . . . ”).

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

To be sure, the Marbury Court invalidated Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 insofar
as it conferred original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in violation of Article III, and for that
reason Marbury did not receive his commission. However, the requirement that every Article III
court have proper jurisdiction does not bear on the existence of a cause of action, and of course,
this case falls squarely within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
9
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

Similarly, in Carroll v. Safford, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 441 (1845), the Court permitted an

2

equitable claim where other legal remedies were inadequate. The Court had “no doubt, that, in a

3

proper case, relief may be given in a court of equity . . . to prevent an injurious act by a public

4
5

officer, for which the law might give no adequate redress.” Id. at 463. And in United States v.

6

Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), the Court allowed plaintiffs to sue federal officers to recover land they

7

alleged had been seized by the United States without valid authority. The Court declared that the

8

law is “the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting

9

office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound . . . to observe the limitations

10
11

which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.” Id. at 220. Although the

12

plaintiffs formally brought their claims as an action of ejectment under Virginia law against the

13

federal officers who administered the disputed property, what they really were challenging was

14

“the right of the United States to property held by such persons as officers or agents for the

15

government,” id. at 204, a type of action not authorized by any statute. Nevertheless, the Supreme

16
17

Court permitted the suit, held that it was not barred by sovereign immunity, and affirmed the

18

judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that “[n]o man in this country is so high

19

that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the

20

officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound

21

to obey it.” Id. at 220. A contrary result would “sanction[] a tyranny which has no existence in

22
23
24

the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated
liberty and the protection of personal rights.” Id. at 221.

25

Finally, in American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94 (1902), the

26

Court permitted a suit in equity seeking to enjoin a local postmaster from carrying out the

27

Postmaster General’s decision to order the retention of mail sent to the plaintiffs’ businesses.

28

10
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

Without considering whether there was a statutory cause of action, the Court explained that the

2

Postmaster General’s “right to exclude letters, or to refuse to permit their delivery to persons

3

addressed, must depend upon some law of Congress, and if no such law exists, then he cannot

4
5

exclude or refuse to deliver them.” Id. at 109. Because “the case is not one which, by any

6

construction of those facts, is covered or provided for by the statutes under which the Postmaster

7

General has assumed to act . . . the courts . . . must have power in a proper proceeding to grant

8

relief.” Id. at 109-10. The Court therefore remanded the case with orders to “grant a temporary

9

injunction as applied for by complainants, and to take such further proceedings as may be proper.”

10
11
12

Id. at 111. “The reasoning of McAnnulty has been employed repeatedly” since then. Chamber of
Commerce of U.S. v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing cases).

13

3. More recent cases have similarly permitted equitable relief in the face of illegal

14

executive action, without any statutory cause of action. For example, in Harmon v. Brucker, 355

15

U.S. 579 (1958), the Court held that the Secretary of the Army’s dishonorable discharge of

16
17

petitioners based on their preinduction conduct was “in excess of powers granted him by Congress.”

18

Id. at 581. Critically, as an antecedent matter, the Court held that the district court erred when it

19

concluded that it lacked the power to hear the case. As the Court explained: “Generally, judicial

20

relief is available to one who has been injured by an act of a government official which is in excess

21

of his express or implied powers.” Id. at 581-82. Thus, the district court had the “power to construe

22
23

the statutes involved to determine whether the respondent did exceed his powers.” Id. at 582. If

24

so, then “judicial relief from this illegality would be available.” Id. at 582. The Court then

25

concluded that the Secretary’s actions exceeded his statutory authority and remanded the case “for

26

the relief to which petitioners are entitled in the light of this opinion.” Id. at 583.

27
28

11
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

In other cases, the Court has decided the merits of statutory challenges to official action

2

without even addressing the lack of a statutory cause of action permitting such a suit. For instance,

3

in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952), the Court struck down the

4
5

President’s executive order seizing certain steel mills, which “was not authorized by an act of

6

Congress or by any constitutional provisions.” Id. at 583. Importantly, although Youngstown

7

rested heavily on the President’s lack of statutory authority for his actions, nowhere in the opinion

8

did the Court discuss the absence of a statutory cause of action permitting the mill owners to file

9

suit challenging the President’s action. Likewise, in Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654

10
11

(1981), the Court again addressed the merits of an action for an injunction based on a claim that

12

officials “were beyond their statutory and constitutional powers.” Id. at 667. While the Court

13

rejected the plaintiffs’ challenge on the merits, upholding the executive action as permissible under

14

federal law, it never once suggested that the plaintiffs could not seek such equitable relief because

15

they lacked a statutory cause of action.

16
17

These are only a few examples of the many decisions in which the Supreme Court has

18

permitted equitable review of executive action that was alleged to exceed an official’s statutory

19

powers, without requiring a statutory cause of action. See, e.g., Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc.,

20

509 U.S. 155, 165, 170 (1993); Oestereich v. Selective Serv. Sys. Local Bd. No. 11, 393 U.S. 233,

21

235, 238-39 (1968); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 537-38, 540, 545 (1959); Land v. Dollar,

22
23

330 U.S. 731, 734, 736-37 (1947); Stark, 321 U.S. at 310; Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. Payne, 259

24

U.S. 197, 198-99 (1922); Payne v. Cent. Pac. Ry. Co., 255 U.S. 228, 236, 238 (1921). As the

25

Court has repeatedly explained, “where [an] officer’s powers are limited by statute, his actions

26

beyond those limitations . . . are ultra vires his authority and therefore may be made the object of

27

specific relief.” Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689 (1949).

28

12
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

Most recently, in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, the Court reiterated that “in a

2

proper case, relief may be given in a court of equity . . . to prevent an injurious act by a public

3

officer.” 135 S. Ct. at 1384 (quoting Carroll, 44 U.S. (3 How.) at 463). The Court cited McAnnulty

4
5

for the proposition that federal courts can grant injunctive relief “with respect to violations of

6

federal law by federal officials.” Id. Indeed, the Court explained, “[t]he ability to sue to enjoin

7

unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers is the creation of courts of equity, and reflects

8

a long history of judicial review of illegal executive action, tracing back to England.” Id. (citing

9

Jaffe & Henderson, supra, at 345); see id. (calling equitable relief “a judge-made remedy”).

10
11

Although the Court concluded that in the Medicaid Act “Congress . . . displace[d] the equitable

12

relief that is traditionally available to enforce federal law,” id. at 1385-86, the Court reaffirmed the

13

long-standing principle that equitable relief is available to prevent unlawful executive action so

14

long as legislation shows no “intent to foreclose equitable relief,” id. at 1385 (quotation marks and

15

citation omitted).

16

***

17
18

Given this history and precedent, Plaintiffs clearly have a cause of action to bring their

19

claims regarding the illegality of the President’s attempt to use funds appropriated for other

20

purposes to build a border wall. These claims—which allege that the executive has exceeded the

21

authority delegated to him by 10 U.S.C. § 2808, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, and

22
23
24

10 U.S.C. § 284—are the type of claims that the federal courts have always had the power to hear
and decide, as the Supreme Court recognized most recently just four years ago.

25

4. The government fails to engage with any of this history or case law in its opposition.

26

Instead, the government argues that courts may engage in equitable review of unlawful official

27

action only when a plaintiff would otherwise be wholly deprived of meaningful review, and

28

13
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

suggests that Plaintiffs here could have brought claims under the APA. Gov’t Opp. 12. The

2

government also argues that, to succeed on the merits, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the

3

President’s actions “contravene clear and mandatory statutory language.” Gov’t Opp. 13 (quoting

4
5
6

Pac. Mar. Ass’n v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 827 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2016)). Both
arguments are wrong.

7

To start, with regard to the argument that the availability of APA review prevents Plaintiffs

8

from seeking extra-statutory equitable review, “[n]othing in the APA purports to be exclusive or

9

suggests that the creation of APA review was intended to preclude any other applicable form of

10
11

review.” Siegel, supra, at 1666. To be sure, the APA imposes its own set of procedural and

12

substantive requirements on agencies and has its own authorizations for judicial review. But by

13

its own terms, the APA “do[es] not limit or repeal additional requirements imposed by statute or

14

otherwise recognized by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 559; see U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Attorney General’s

15

Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 139 (1947) (this provision was “intended simply to

16
17

indicate that the act will be interpreted as supplementing constitutional and legal requirements

18

imposed by existing law”); Siegel, supra, at 1666 (describing legislative history indicating that

19

Congress “appeared to contemplate expressly the possibility that nonstatutory review could

20

supplement the review provided by the APA”).

21

The “enactment of the APA,” therefore, did “not repeal the review of ultra vires actions

22
23

recognized long before,” and as a result, “[w]hen an executive acts ultra vires, courts are normally

24

available to reestablish the limits on his authority.” Reich, 74 F.3d at 1328 (quoting Dart v. United

25

States, 848 F.2d 217, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1988)); Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662, 682 (9th Cir. 2017)

26

(explaining that a “cause of action . . . exists outside of the APA” that “allows courts to

27

review ultra vires actions by the President that go beyond the scope of the President's statutory

28

14
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

authority”), rev’d on other grounds and remanded, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018). Indeed, as discussed

2

above, the Supreme Court has entertained suits in equity to challenge government action in

3

numerous cases since the APA was passed without any discussion of whether the plaintiffs in those

4
5

cases could seek relief under the APA. See supra at 11-13.

6

More generally, however, the government’s attempt to limit the availability of equitable

7

relief to cases in which a plaintiff has no other avenue for meaningful review has a more

8

fundamental problem. The restrictive standard the government would apply to all claims for

9

equitable relief in reality is required only for one narrow subclass of equitable review: cases in

10
11
12

which Congress creates statutory rights and establishes a judicial review scheme that implicitly
precludes other modes of enforcing those rights.

13

That rule originated in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958). There, the plaintiffs sought

14

to challenge a determination of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that the plaintiffs

15

argued was beyond the Board’s statutory authority. The NLRB responded that a provision

16
17

authorizing judicial review of other, final Board determinations “implied, by its silence, a

18

preclusion of review of the contested determination.” Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys.

19

v. MCorp Fin., Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (discussing Leedom). “The Court rejected that

20

argument, emphasizing the presumption that Congress normally intends the federal courts to

21

enforce and protect the rights that Congress has created.” Id. at 43. Observing that denying review

22
23

“would mean a sacrifice or obliteration of a right which Congress has given . . . for there is no

24

other means . . . to protect and enforce that right,” Leedom, 358 U.S. at 190 (quotation marks and

25

citation omitted), the Court held that neither statutory silence nor negative implication offered a

26

sufficiently clear indication of congressional intent to overcome the presumption of enforceability.

27
28

15
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

In other words, courts should not “lightly infer that Congress does not intend judicial protection

2

of rights it confers against agency action taken in excess of delegated powers.” Id.

3

Importantly, Leedom did not address the background conditions under which equitable

4
5

review is available as a general matter, nor did it limit the availability of such review. The case

6

simply “stands for the familiar proposition that ‘only upon a showing of “clear and convincing

7

evidence” of a contrary legislative intent should the courts restrict access to judicial review.’”

8

MCorp, 502 U.S. at 44 (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141 (1967)); see Staacke

9

v. U.S. Sec’y of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 280 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (“the presumption favoring judicial

10
11

review . . . may be overcom[e] whenever the congressional intent to preclude review is fairly

12

discernible in the statutory scheme” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). The government has

13

made no effort to show “clear and convincing evidence” that Congress sought to preclude equitable

14

remedies for violations of the statutes that undergird Plaintiffs’ claims here. Thus, even assuming

15

that APA review may also be available, that should not prevent the Plaintiffs from seeking these

16
17
18

equitable remedies.
The only Supreme Court case that the government cites for its rule is Board of Governors

19

of the Federal Reserve System v. MCorp Financial, Inc.

20

straightforward application of Leedom in which “the congressional preclusion of review” was

21

But that decision was merely a

obvious. MCorp, 502 U.S. at 44. There, the Court considered whether a bank could sue the Federal

22
23

Reserve in district court seeking to enjoin administrative actions for violating a regulation the bank

24

believed to be in excess of the Federal Reserve’s statutory authority. Id. at 34. The Court said no,

25

relying on two factors. First, the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966, the statute that

26

permitted the Federal Reserve to institute the administrative proceedings, established a “regime of

27

judicial review” that required proceedings to go to the Federal Reserve first, and then to be

28

16
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

appealed to a court of appeals. Id. at 38. Second, the Act said that “no court shall have jurisdiction

2

to affect by injunction or otherwise the issuance or enforcement of any [Federal Reserve] notice

3

or order under any such section.” 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1). Thus, the Court concluded that not only

4
5

had Congress created “a meaningful and adequate opportunity for judicial review” in the statutory

6

scheme in question, but it also “spoke[] clearly and directly” that it intended to preclude other

7

forms of judicial review. McCorp, 502 U.S. at 43-44.

8
9

Neither of those factors exist here, and the government has made no argument that they do.
None of the statutes on which the plaintiffs base this suit prescribe a “regime of judicial review,”

10
11
12

id. at 38, designed to address this specific situation, much less preclude other extra-statutory means
of enforcing the statutes’ terms.4

13

The government’s argument that Plaintiffs, to succeed on the merits, must demonstrate that

14

the President’s actions “contravene clear and mandatory statutory language,” Gov’t Opp. 13

15

(quoting Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 827 F.3d at 1208), is also wrong—indeed doubly wrong.

16
17
18

First, this standard pertains only to cases involving the Leedom rule, not to cases of
equitable review generally. Indeed, all three decisions cited by the government involve situations

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

The government also cites a single out-of-circuit appellate decision, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico v. United States, 490 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2007), in support of its view, see Gov’t Opp.
12. But as explained above, the First Circuit’s statement that MCorp “established two critical
factors that must be present to invoke nonstatutory review,” Puerto Rico, 490 F.3d at 59 (brackets,
quotation marks, and citation omitted), is simply wrong—and the court offers little reasoning in
support of its statement. Among other things, the First Circuit misinterpreted an observation from
the D.C. Circuit that “[i]f a plaintiff is unable to bring his case predicated on either a specific or a
general statutory review provision, he may still be able to institute a non-statutory review action.”
Reich, 74 F.3d at 1327 (citing Clark Byse & Joseph V. Fiocca, Section 1361 of the Mandamus and
Venue Act of 1962 and “Nonstatutory” Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action, 81 Harv.
L. Rev. 308, 321 (1967)). The First Circuit misread that observation to mean that nonstatutory
review is available only when a plaintiff is unable to bring his case under a statutory review
provision. But Reich itself held that nonstatutory review remains available despite the existence
of a potentially viable claim under the APA. Id. at 1326-27, 1328.
17
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

in which Congress created statutory rights and a review scheme for the enforcement of those rights,

2

but where plaintiffs sought to pursue enforcement proceedings outside of those review schemes.

3

See Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 827 F.3d at 1204 (“We conclude that the district court had no jurisdiction

4
5

over [the plaintiff-appellee’s] effort to obtain review of a non-final NLRB ruling, as the Leedom

6

exception to the finality requirement does not apply.”); Staacke, 841 F.2d at 281 (concluding that

7

“the statutory provision absolutely bars judicial review” and that “the narrow window left open by

8

the Supreme Court in permitting review when a clear statutory mandate has been transgressed does

9

not justify review in this case”); Horizon Air Indus., Inc. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 232 F.3d 1126,

10
11

1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “[f]ederal court jurisdiction over NMB [National

12

Mediation Board] actions is . . . ‘one of the narrowest known to the law,’” because the relevant

13

scheme gave the Board “discretion over, and the power to resolve finally, representation disputes,”

14

thus depriving federal courts of “jurisdiction over the merits of a representation dispute decided

15

by the NMB” (quoting Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Trans World Airlines,

16
17

839 F.2d 809, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988))).

18

Second, this rule pertains only to establishing reviewability, not to success on the merits.

19

See Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 827 F.3d at 1208 (“The exercise of jurisdiction under Leedom thus requires

20

a plaintiff to make a two-part showing. First, the challenged [administrative] action . . . must

21

contravene ‘clear and mandatory’ statutory language.” (citations omitted & emphasis added)

22
23

(quoting Leedom, 358 U.S. at 188)); Staacke, 841 F.2d at 281 (Under the Leedom rule,

24

“jurisdiction exists where defendant is charged with violating a clear statutory mandate or

25

prohibition.” (citations omitted & emphasis added)); Horizon, 232 F.3d at 1132 (despite

26

congressional preclusion of review, “courts have jurisdiction to review allegations that the NMB

27
28

18
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1

has acted outside its legislative authority” and will “take only a ‘peek at the merits’ to determine

2

if the NMB has committed an error of these dimensions”).

3

Here, Plaintiffs assert simply that the President’s actions exceed his statutory authority,

4
5

and the statutes he is allegedly violating say nothing about judicial review, much less preclude

6

review outside of a specified review scheme. Indeed, as discussed earlier, the Supreme Court has

7

consistently permitted judicial review of illegal executive action in cases like this for the last two

8

centuries. During that period, the Court has never held, or even suggested, that a plaintiff must

9

meet a higher bar to obtain equitable relief than any other relief premised on an executive official’s

10
11

violation of a statute, outside of the narrow Leedom context. In short, Plaintiffs need not show that

12

the Defendants’ actions “contravene clear and mandatory statutory language,” Gov’t Opp. 13

13

(quoting Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 827 F.3d at 1208), in order to obtain the relief they seek.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

19
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

CONCLUSION

1
2
3

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should reject Defendants’ argument that there is no
cause of action here.

4
5

Respectfully submitted,

6

/s/ Elizabeth B. Wydra
Elizabeth B. Wydra (Bar No. 218200)
Brianne J. Gorod
Brian R. Frazelle
Ashwin P. Phatak
CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER
1200 18th Street, N.W.
Suite 501
Washington, D.C. 20036
[phone]
[e-mail]

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Counsel for Amici Curiae Federal
Courts Scholars

14
15
16

Dated: May 2, 2019

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

20
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG

1
2
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 2, 2019, the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of
the Court, using the CM/ECF system, causing it to be served on all counsel of record.

4
5

Dated: May 2, 2019

6

/s/ Elizabeth B. Wydra
Elizabeth B. Wydra

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

21
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS
SCHOLARS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

Case Nos. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG,
4:19-cv-00892-HSG