Access to Justice

Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition v. Trump; State of California v. Trump

In Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition v. Trump and State of California v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California considered whether President Trump can lawfully divert funds that Congress has appropriated for other purposes for the construction of a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico.

Case Summary

In February 2019, following months of trying to secure funding from Congress to build a wall along the southern border, President Trump declared a “national emergency” and directed that funds Congress appropriated for other purposes be diverted to build the wall. A coalition of states, as well as two nonprofit organizations, the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, brought suits against the President and executive officials, arguing that this diversion of funds exceeds the President’s authority under the Constitution and federal laws. Since then, CAC has filed multiple amici curiae briefs on behalf of federal courts scholars in support of the plaintiffs’ ability to bring this challenge against President Trump’s unlawful diversion of funds.

Our briefs have addressed the central arguments being made by the Trump administration to escape judicial review: that the plaintiffs cannot bring this lawsuit because no statute authorizes them to sue, and that the plaintiffs are not within the “zone of interests” protected by the laws that the administration claims authorize its actions.

Our brief explains why the administration’s arguments are wrong. First, the federal courts’ power to order injunctive (“equitable”) relief has long included the power to order the government to stop unauthorized conduct that injures a plaintiff—regardless of whether a statute provides a cause of action authorizing that plaintiff to sue. As the Supreme Court has explained, this form of equitable review reflects a long history in our legal tradition, tracing back to England, of judicially reviewing the legality of executive action.

Second, our brief shows that when plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to stop unauthorized government conduct that is injuring them, no “zone of interests” test limits their ability to obtain that relief. As we explain, the zone-of-interests test applies only when a plaintiff relies on a statutorily conferred cause of action to vindicate rights that were created by legislation. But where, as here, plaintiffs do not rely on such statutes, because they are directly injured by unauthorized government conduct, there is no “zone of interests” test to apply.

At present, the district court has issued two permanent injunctions, which order the Trump administration not to fund the border wall using money diverted from a Defense Department appropriations act or from a statute that authorizes “military construction projects.” Both injunctions are on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. In the course of issuing these injunctions, the district court has repeatedly cited CAC’s amici brief on behalf of federal courts scholars in explaining why persons who are injured by unauthorized government conduct do not need a statutory cause of action to seek injunctive relief to halt that conduct.

Case Timeline

  • May 2, 2019

    CAC files amici curiae brief in support of Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction

    N.D. Cal. Amici Curiae Brief
  • May 24, 2019

    The district court issues its decision on the preliminary injunction

  • June 11, 2019

    CAC files amici curiae brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion for a stay

    9th Cir. Amici Br.
  • July 3, 2019

    The Ninth Circuit denies the stay

  • July 26, 2019

    The Supreme Court grants a stay

  • August 22, 2019

    CAC files an amici curiae brief supporting affirmance of the district court’s permanent injunction against using funds from the Department of Defense Appropriations Act

    9th Cir. Amici Br.
  • November 4, 2019

    CAC files an amici curiae brief in opposition to the defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment in the district court on using military construction funds

    N.D. Cal. Amicus Br.
  • November 12, 2019

    The Ninth Circuit holds a hearing on the injunction against using funds from Department of Defense Appropriations Act

  • December 11, 2019

    The district court issues a permanent injunction against using military construction funds

  • February 20, 2020

    CAC files an amici curiae brief supporting affirmance of the district court’s permanent injunction on using military construction funds

    9th Cir. Amici Br.
  • March 10, 2020

    The Ninth Circuit hears oral arguments

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
February 25, 2020

Court says Mexicans cannot sue Border Patrol agents in fatal shootings

Cronkite News (Arizona PBS)
“The court has closed the courthouse doors on those victimized by federal officers, leaving them...
By: David H. Gans, By McKenzie Sadeghi
Access to Justice
February 25, 2020

RELEASE: Conservative Justices Deny Accountability to Family After Cross-Border Killing of Their Son

“The bottom line take-away after today’s ruling is that U.S. border guards can continue to...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, David H. Gans
Access to Justice
November 12, 2019

RELEASE: Will the Supreme Court Sanction a Constitution-Free Zone at the Border?

“The Supreme Court shouldn’t sanction a Constitution-free zone at the border that would allow U.S....
By: David H. Gans
Access to Justice
August 29, 2019

Rutherford Institute Challenges Government Efforts to Sidestep Rule of Law, Undermine Sixth Amendment Assurance of Right to Legal Counsel

The Rutherford Institute
Pushing back against efforts to sidestep the rule of law and disregard fundamental protections for...
Access to Justice
August 23, 2019

Tribe, Ex-Gov’t Officials Argue Against Border Wall Funding

Law360
A Native American tribe, former government officials, law professors and scores of religious groups threw...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

In Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the ability to sue over constitutional violations is limited by a “zone of interests” test.