State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 235

MOTION for Leave to Present Argument in the Summary Judgment Hearing filed by United States House of Representatives. Motion Hearing set for 11/20/2019 10:00 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor before Judge Haywood S Gilliam Jr.. Responses due by 11/8/2019. Replies due by 11/15/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Barbero, Megan) (Filed on 10/25/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Douglas N. Letter, General Counsel Todd B. Tatelman, Deputy General Counsel Megan Barbero, Associate General Counsel Josephine Morse, Associate General Counsel Adam A. Grogg, Assistant General Counsel OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 (telephone) (202) 226-1360 (facsimile) megan.barbero@mail.house.gov Carter G. Phillips Virginia A. Seitz Joseph R. Guerra Christopher A. Eiswerth SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 (telephone) (202) 736-8711 (facsimile) cphillips@sidley.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae the United States House of Representatives 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 10 11 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG M.S.J. Hearing Date: Nov. 20, 2019 Time: 10:00 AM MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING 18 19 The United States House of Representatives respectfully requests leave to present 20 argument during the hearing on the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment, which is 21 currently scheduled for November 20, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. ECF No. 228. This Court granted the 22 House’s motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae expressing the views of the House in 23 support of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 224. As discussed below 24 and in our amicus brief, ECF No. 226, the House has a compelling institutional interest in the 25 Court’s grant of relief to prohibit the Executive Branch defendants from spending federal funds 26 under 10 U.S.C. § 2808 without a valid Congressional appropriation. Because the expenditures 27 challenged here usurp the House’s Article I legislative authority, the House has a distinct interest 28 MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING (4:19-cv-00872-HSG) 1 in this case and respectfully submits that its presentation of argument will aid the Court in its 2 determination of the issues. Plaintiffs and 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 constitutional separation-of-powers principles. 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) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961)). 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. 226 at 3. The Administration 15 claims that it has statutory authority to expend those funds, including pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 16 § 2808. Id. at 3-4. Those arguments are incorrect, as plaintiffs and the House have argued: the 17 cited statutory provision provides no authority for the expenditures on a border wall. Absent a 18 valid 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 2808 to construct a border wall. See U.S. House of Representatives v. 22 Mnuchin, No. 19-cv-969 (D.D.C. April 5, 2019), appeal docketed, No. 19-5176 (D.C. Cir. June 23 14, 2019). To protect its constitutional interests, the House recently filed an amicus brief in this 24 suit urging the Court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment concerning 25 expenditures pursuant to Section 2808. This Court has previously granted the House leave to file 26 an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 72, 27 and to participate in the hearing on that motion, see ECF No. 111. With the Court’s leave, the 28 MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING (4:19-cv-00872-HSG) 2 1 House has also filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment 2 concerning expenditures pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284. See ECF No. 181. 3 As noted at the outset, because the actions by the Executive Branch defendants here go to 4 the very heart of an essential power of Congress, put in place by the Framers to protect the people 5 of the United States from unchecked actions by the Executive Branch, the House has a unique 6 interest in this matter. Accordingly, the House respectfully requests leave to present argument 7 during the hearing on the motions for partial summary judgment. 8 9 10 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the House’s motion for leave to present argument in the partial summary judgment hearing scheduled for November 20, 2019. 11 Respectfully submitted, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CARTER G. PHILLIPS VIRGINIA A. SEITZ JOSEPH R. GUERRA CHRISTOPHER A. EISWERTH SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K STREET N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 (telephone) (202) 736-8711 (facsimile) cphillips@sidley.com OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL* U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-9700 (telephone) (202) 226-1360 (facsimile) megan.barbero@mail.house.gov 20 21 22 23 24 DOUGLAS N. LETTER General Counsel TODD B. TATELMAN Deputy General Counsel /s/ Megan Barbero MEGAN BARBERO Associate General Counsel JOSEPHINE MORSE Associate General Counsel ADAM A. GROGG Assistant General Counsel October 25, 2019 Counsel for Amicus Curiae the United States House of Representatives 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. MOTION OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN THE PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING (4:19-cv-00872-HSG) 3 1 2 3 4 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 25, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to be filed via the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s CM/ECF system, which I understand caused service on all registered parties. 6 7 /s/ Megan Barbero Megan Barbero 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 PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

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?