State of California et al v. Trump et al
Filing
201
ORDER of United States Supreme Court. (jjbS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2019)
Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019)
1
BREYER, J., concurring in part and, dissenting in part
Opinion of BREYER J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 19A60
_________________
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, ET AL. v. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[July 26, 2019]
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and
by her referred to the Court is granted. Among the reasons
is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at
this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005. The District Court’s June 28, 2019 order granting
a permanent injunction is stayed pending disposition of the
Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s
petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.
Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this
stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE
KAGAN would deny the application.
JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in part and dissenting in
part from grant of stay.
To warrant this stay, the Government must show not just
(1) a reasonable probability that the Court will grant certiorari and (2) a fair prospect that the Court will reverse, but
also (3) “ ‘a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from
the denial of a stay.’ ” Maryland v. King, 567 U. S. 1301,
1302 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers). This case raises
novel and important questions about the ability of private
2
TRUMP v. SIERRA CLUB
BREYER, J., concurring in part and, dissenting in part
Opinion of BREYER J.
parties to enforce Congress’ appropriations power. I would
express no other view now on the merits of those questions.
Before granting a stay, however, we must still assess the
competing claims of harm and balance the equities. Barnes
v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins.
Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers).
This Court may, and sometimes does, “tailor a stay so that
it operates with respect to only ‘some portion of the proceeding.’ ” Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project,
582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (per curiam) (slip op., at 10) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009)). In my view,
this is an appropriate case to do so.
If we grant the stay, the Government may begin construction of a border barrier that would cause irreparable harm
to the environment and to respondents, according to both
respondents and the District Court. The Government’s only
response to this claim of irreparable harm is that, if respondents ultimately prevail, the border barrier may be
taken down (with what funding, the Government does not
say). But this is little comfort because it is not just the barrier, but the construction itself (and presumably its later
destruction) that contributes to respondents’ injury.
If we instead deny the stay, however, it is the Government that may be irreparably harmed. The Government
has represented that, if it is unable to finalize the contracts
by September 30, then the funds at issue will be returned
to the Treasury and the injunction will have operated, in
effect, as a final judgment. Respondents suggest a court
could still award the Government relief after an appropriation lapses, though that proposition has yet to be endorsed
by this Court.
But there is a straightforward way to avoid harm to both
the Government and respondents while allowing the litigation to proceed. Allowing the Government to finalize the
contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would alleviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government
Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019)
3
BREYER, J., concurring in part and, dissenting in part
Opinion of BREYER J.
without risking irreparable harm to respondents. Respondents do not suggest that they will be harmed by finalization
of the contracts alone, and there is reason to believe they
would not be. See, e.g., 36 Opinion of Office of Legal Counsel 11 (2012) (noting that, because of the Anti-Deficiency
Act, “the government [is] legally incapable of incurring a
contractual obligation to pay more money than Congress
had appropriated”), online at https://www.justice.gov/file/
20596/download (as last visited July 26, 2019); see also Leiter v. United States, 271 U. S. 204, 206–207 (1926); Sutton
v. United States, 256 U. S. 575, 580–581 (1921); Hooe v.
United States, 218 U. S. 322, 332–334 (1910); Bradley v.
United States, 98 U. S. 104, 116–117 (1878).
I can therefore find no justification for granting the stay
in full, as the majority does. I would grant the Government’s application to stay the injunction only to the extent
that the injunction prevents the Government from finalizing the contracts or taking other preparatory administrative action, but leave it in place insofar as it precludes the
Government from disbursing those funds or beginning construction. I accordingly would grant the stay in part and
deny it in part.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?