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)
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?