DOCSLIB.ORG

CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP Performing the Duties of the Secretary of the Army; RICHARD V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP Performing the Duties of the Secretary of the Army; RICHARD V FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 19-16299 COLORADO; STATE OF CONNECTICUT; STATE OF D.C. No. DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII; 4:19-cv-00872- STATE OF MAINE; STATE OF HSG MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MARYLAND; DANA NESSEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF WISCONSIN; STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARK T. ESPER, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense; RYAN D. MCCARTHY, senior official 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP performing the duties of the Secretary of the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy; HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellants. STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF No. 19-16336 NEW MEXICO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00872- v. HSG DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United OPINION States of America; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; MARK T. ESPER, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense; RYAN D. MCCARTHY, senior official performing the duties of the Secretary of the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy; HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendants-Appellees. 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 12, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed June 26, 2020 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Kim McLane Wardlaw and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Dissent by Judge Collins STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP 5 SUMMARY* Appropriations The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment holding that budgetary transfers of funds for the construction of a wall on the southern border of the United States in California and New Mexico were not authorized under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019. Section 8005 and Section 9002 of the Act (collectively “Section 8005”) was invoked to transfer $2.5 billion of Department of Defense funds appropriated for other purposes to fund border wall construction. Sixteen states, including California and New Mexico, filed suit challenging the Executive Branch’s funding of the border wall. The district court granted California and New Mexico’s motion for partial summary judgment, and issued declaratory relief, holding the Section 8005 transfer of funds as to the El Centro and El Paso sectors unlawful. The panel held that California and New Mexico established the requisite Article III standing to challenge the federal defendants’ actions. Concerning the injury in fact element of standing, the panel held that California and New Mexico alleged that the actions of the federal defendants will cause particularized and concrete injuries in fact to the environment and wildlife of their respective states as well as to their sovereign interests in * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP enforcing their environmental laws. First, the panel held that California and New Mexico each provided sufficient evidence, if taken as true, that would allow a reasonable fact- finder to conclude that both states would suffer injuries in fact to their environmental interests, and in particular, to protect endangered species within their borders. Second, the panel also held that California and New Mexico demonstrated that border wall construction injured their quasi-sovereign interests by preventing them from enforcing their environmental laws. Concerning the causation element for standing, the panel held that California alleged environmental and sovereign injuries that were fairly traceable to the federal defendants’ conduct. The panel held that with respect to most of the environmental injuries, causation was apparent. The panel also concluded that the causation requirement was likewise satisfied for the injuries to California’s and New Mexico’s quasi-sovereign interests. Concerning the redressability element of standing, the panel held that a ruling in California and New Mexico’s favor would redress their harms. Without the Section 8005 funds, the Department of Defense would have inadequate funding to finance construction of the projects, and this would prevent both the alleged and environmental and sovereign injuries. The panel held that California and New Mexico had the right to challenge the transfer of funds under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Specifically, the panel held that Section 8005 imposed certain obligations upon the Department of Defense, which it did not satisfy. The panel further held that California and New Mexico, as aggrieved parties, could pursue a remedy under the APA, as STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP 7 long as they fell within Section 8005’s zone of interests. The panel held that California and New Mexico were suitable challengers because their interests were congruent with those of Congress and were not inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute. The panel concluded that California and New Mexico easily fell within the zone of interests of Section 8005. The panel held that Section 8005 did not authorize the Department of Defense’s budgetary transfer to fund construction of the El Paso and El Centro Sectors. Specifically, the panel concluded that the district court correctly determined that the border wall was not an unforeseen military requirement, and that funding for the wall had been denied by Congress. Absent such statutory authority, the Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to transfer the funds at issue here. The panel concluded that the transfer of funds was unlawful, and affirmed the district court’s declaratory judgment to California and New Mexico. Finally, the panel declined to reverse the district court’s denial of California and New Mexico’s request for permanent injunctive relief, without prejudice to renewal. Judge Collins dissented. He agreed that at least California established Article III standing, but would hold that the States lacked any cause of action to challenge the transfer of funds under the APA or otherwise. Even assuming that they had a cause of action, Judge Collins would conclude that the transfers were lawful and reverse the district court’s partial judgment for the States and remand for entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants. 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP COUNSEL H. Thomas Byron III (argued), Anne Murphy, and Courtney L. Dixon, Appellate Staff; Hashim M. Mooppan and James M. Burnham, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General; Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Dror Ladin (argued), Noor Zafar, Jonathan Hafetz, Hina Shamsi, and Omar C. Jadwat, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York; Cecillia D. Wang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, San Francisco, California; Mollie M. Lee and Christine P. Sun, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California Inc., San Francisco, California; David Donatti and Andre I. Segura, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Houston, Texas; Sanjay Narayan and Gloria D. Smith, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, Oakland, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Douglas N. Letter (argued), Todd B. Tatelman, Megan Barbero, Josephine Morse, and Kristin A. Shapiro, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.; Carter G. Phillips, Virginia A. Seitz, Joseph R. Guerra, and Christopher A. Eiswerth, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States House of Representatives. James F. Zahradka II (argued), Brian J. Bilford, Sparsh S. Khandeshi, Heather C. Leslie, Lee I. Sherman, and Janelle M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General; Michael P. Cayaban, Christine Chuang, and Edward H. Ochoa, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General; Robert W. Byrne, Sally Magnani, and Michael L. Newman, Senior Assistant Attorneys General; STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. TRUMP 9 Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Attorney General’s Office, Oakland, California; Jennie Lusk, Civil Rights Bureau Chief; Nicholas M. Sydow, Civil Appellate Chief; Tania Maestas, Chief
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Judge Alphabetical Name Index
    ALPHABETICAL NAME INDEX Agati, Salvatore C. Judge, Connecticut Superior Albers, Ronald E. Judge, Superior Court of Cali- Alfeld, Philip B. Associate Judge, Illinois Circuit Court, CT fornia City and County of San Francisco Mental Courts - Third Judicial Circuit Madison, IL Agbayani, Antonino J. Judge, Superior Court of Health, CA Alfieri, Victor J., Jr. Justice, New York Supreme California County of San Joaquin Family, CA Albert, Janet E. Magistrate Judge, Superior Court - Ninth Judicial District, NY; Judge, New Agee, G. Steven Judge, United States Court of Court of the District of Columbia Family, Neglect York County Court Rockland, NY Appeals for the Fourth Circuit & Abuse, DC Alfonso, Margaret Judge, Mississippi County Agerton, Doug Judge, Alabama Probate Courts Albert, Michael R. Associate Judge, Illinois Cir- Courts Harrison, MS Escambia, AL cuit Courts - Fourteenth Judicial Circuit White- Alford, Benjamin G. Senior Resident Judge, Agnes, Peter W., Jr. Associate Justice, Massa- side, IL North Carolina Superior Courts - District 3B, NC chusetts Appeals Court, MA Albert, Theodor C. Judge, United States Bank- Alford, Gary R. Judge, City Courts in New York Agostini, John A. Associate Justice, Massachu- ruptcy Court Central District of California Santa Ogdensburg, NY setts Superior Court Department, MA Ana, CA Alford, Lee S. Retired Judge, South Carolina Cir- Albertson, Bruce D. Judge, Virginia Circuit Agran, Martin S. Circuit Judge, Illinois Circuit cuit Court - Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, SC Courts - Twenty-Sixth Judicial Circuit, VA Courts - Circuit Court of Cook County Cook, IL Alford, Margaret L. District Magistrate Judge, Albin, Barry T. Associate Justice, Supreme Kansas District Court - Twenty-Sixth Judicial Dis- Agresti, Thomas P.
    [Show full text]
  • California V. Azar
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and No. 19-15974 through Attorney General Xavier Becerra, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:19-cv-01184-EMC v. ALEX M. AZAR II, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants. ESSENTIAL ACCESS HEALTH, No. 19-15979 INC.; MELISSA MARSHALL, M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01195-EMC v. ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. AZAR Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF No. 19-35386 NEW YORK; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF D.C. Nos. CONNECTICUT; STATE OF 6:19-cv-00317-MC DELAWARE; DISTRICT OF 6:19-cv-00318-MC COLUMBIA; STATE OF HAWAII; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MARYLAND; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; OREGON MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHWESTERN OREGON; PLANNED PARENTHOOD COLUMBIA WILLAMETTE; THOMAS N. EWING, M.D.; MICHELE P. MEGREGIAN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. AZAR 3 C.N.M., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALEX M.
    [Show full text]
  • For the District of Oregon
    A Quarterly Newsletter of the Oregon Chapter of the Federal Bar Association FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Volume XVI, No. 4 Winter 2012-13 IN THIS ISSUE USING CONTENTION INTERROGATORIES IN THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 1 Using Contention Interrogatories in the District of Oregon By: Margaret “Gosia” Fonberg, Staff Attorney to the Honorable Thomas M. Coffin By: Margaret “Gosia” Fonberg 1, 3-5 The use of contention interrogatories–interrogatories that seek the facts, witnesses and documents supporting the factual An Endorsement of the District of basis for allegations in a complaint–is governed by Rule 33 Oregon’s Pro Bono Program By: Tim DeLong 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While contention interrogatories can be used effectively in a wide array of The Ashmanskas Trivia Box 2 lawsuits, they are of primary importance in complex litigation. For example, the defendant in a products liability case is initially Procedural Aspects of Anti-SLAPP presented with little more than an allegation that a particular Motions in Federal Court By: Clifford S. Davidson product was unreasonably dangerous. Interrogatories can be 6-7 used to expand and elaborate such an allegation. See, e.g. Taylor v. Fed. Dep. Ins. Corp., 132 F.3d 753, 762 (D.C. Cir. Local Teens go “Behind the Robe” 1997) (explaining when a complaint is vague and conclusory, a By: Herald DuCloux 7-8 defendant need not move for dismissal, but rather should send contention interrogatories). Oregon FBA Partners With Other In re Convergent Technologies Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985), provides Groups to Present CLE examples of four common contention interrogatories: (1) those that begin, “Do you By: Margaret “Gosia” Fonberg contend thats .
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Prosecution
    Criminal Prosecution YALE LAW SCHOOL • CAREER DEVELOPMENT OFFICE • NEW HAVEN, CT yale law school • career development office www.law.yale.edu/cdo Please note: Some sections of this guide have been removed due to their proprietary nature. Table of Contents Index of Alumni Narratives Index of Student Narratives Chapter 1 Criminal Prosecution A. Overview 1. Summer Internships 2. Attorney Hiring B. The U.S. Attorney’s Office 1. Summer Internships 2. Attorney Hiring C. The District Attorney’s Office 1. Summer Internships 2. Attorney Hiring Chapter 2 Yale Law School Resources A. Portions of this guide have been removed from the public version. B. C. D. Online Resources Chapter 3 Personal Narratives A. Attorneys 1. District Attorney 2. U.S. Attorney B. Summer Interns 1. U.S. Attorney Index of Alumni Narratives District Attorney’s Office New York County District Attorney’s Office, Martha Bashford New York County District Attorney’s Office, Jorge Xavier Camacho New York County District Attorney’s Office, Mark Dwyer El Paso County District Attorney’s Office, Rebecca Tarango U.S. Attorney’s Office Central District of California, Wesley Hsu District of Columbia, Stephen Gripkey District of Connecticut, Liam Brennan District of Connecticut/Dept. of Justice Attaché, Italy, Bill Nardini Middle District of Florida, Jay Hoffer Southern District of Florida, Matthew Axelrod Southern District of Florida, Evelyn Baltodano-Sheehan District of Massachusetts, Michael Tabak Southern District of New York, Nicholas Lewin District of Oregon, Hannah Horsley Northern District of Texas, Jay Weimer Index of Student Narratives U.S. Attorney’s Office District of Arizona, Dylan Keenan District of Columbia, Marisa West District of Connecticut (New Haven), Lisa Wang District of Connecticut (New Haven), Anonymous Eastern District of New York, Samuel Adelsberg Eastern District of Virginia, Joshua Bone U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 March 27, 2020 President Donald J. Trump the White House 1600
    March 27, 2020 President Donald J. Trump The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Trump: As you recently declared, the spread of COVID-19 is a national emergency that threatens thousands of lives across our country. According to estimates, the death toll from this virus could range anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands or even more than one million in the United States. We, as former United States Attorneys, federal judges, Assistant United States Attorneys, and DOJ lawyers and leaders, understand the obligation to protect the safety and wellbeing of everyone in our community. This obligation extends to those in federal detention and correctional centers, where almost 20 percent are over the age of 50 and many have underlying health conditions.1 This obligation also extends to staff and correctional officers, their families, and the communities where these facilities are located. We write to express our concern that, unless you take immediate action, it will be just a matter of time before there is a COVID-19 outbreak of massive proportions in a federal detention or correctional facility. We believe that the current crisis creates a need to speak out and urge current leaders to implement a plan to dramatically reduce the number of incarcerated individuals and address the threat of disastrous outbreaks. If and when a COVID-19 outbreak occurs in a Bureau of Prisons facility, the correctional officers and staff will all be at great risk of infection as well. With all of these
    [Show full text]
  • 1 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
    Case 3:14-cv-00608-JCS Document 379 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 105 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 AARON SENNE, et al., 7 Case No. 14-cv-00608-JCS Plaintiffs, 8 Related Case No. 14-cv-03289-JCS v. 9 KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS 10 CORP., et al., AND MOTIONS TO TRANSFER 11 Defendants. Re: Docket Nos. 281, 283, 285, 286 12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiffs in this putative class action are former Minor League baseball players who assert 15 claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and California, Florida, Arizona, 16 North Carolina and New York wage and hour laws against the Office of the Commissioner of 17 Baseball doing business as Major League Baseball (“MLB”) and its thirty member franchises. United States District Court Northern District of California California Northern District of 18 Presently before the Court are two sets of motions challenging personal jurisdiction and venue. 19 With respect to personal jurisdiction, two motions to dismiss have been filed in this action 20 (the “Motions to Dismiss”). First, ten of the MLB Clubs named as Defendants in the Complaint – 21 Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc., Boston Red Sox Baseball Club L.P., Chicago White 22 Sox, Ltd., Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., Inc., Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., L.P., Detroit 23 Tigers, Inc., New York Yankees Partnership, The Phillies, Pittsburgh Associates, L.P., Tampa Bay 24 Rays Baseball, Ltd., and Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC (“Proskauer PJ Defendants”) 25 bring a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint as Against Certain Defendants 26 for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Summary
    California State Budget 2021-22 This page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . 1 Summary Charts . 13 Equitable and Broad Based Recovery . 17 Pandemic Response and Federal Assistance . 29 Emergency Response . 37 K-12 Education . 43 Higher Education . 55 Health and Human Services . 69 Housing and Homelessness . 91 Climate Change . 105 Sustainable Agriculture . 113 Natural Resources . 119 Environmental Protection . 125 Judicial Branch . 129 Criminal Justice . 135 Labor and Workforce Development . 155 Transportation . 163 General Government and Statewide Issues . 169 Veto Message . 183 Staff Assignments . 185 This page intentionally blank to facilitate double-sided printing. Version number jA1s8RKnoP5m INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION he COVID-19 Pandemic has tested all Californians and stressed hospitals, health T systems, schools, and the overall economy. Despite these extraordinary challenges, the state's science-based approach has saved countless lives. Coupled with a strong fiscal position, the state has laid the foundation for the strong economic recovery now underway. The 2021 Budget Act provides for immediate relief to families and businesses, and makes investments to address California’s long-standing challenges. It provides opportunity for every California family—regardless of their income, race, or ZIP code. MAINTAINING BUDGET RESILIENCY Building reserves and paying down debt are critical to protect core programs in the future and to prepare the state for emergencies—but it is also critical to avoid overcommitting to ongoing programs and spending that cannot be easily adjusted when the state experiences significant revenue declines. This is why the Budget prioritizes one-time spending over ongoing, allocating 85 percent of discretionary funds to one-time spending.
    [Show full text]
  • Captain J. B. Campbell
    University of Oklahoma College of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 1-31-1879 Captain J. B. Campbell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialset Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation H.R. Rep. No. 91, 45th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1879) This House Report is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 45TR CoNGREss, } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REPORT 3d Session. { No. 91. CAPTAIN J. B. OA:l\IPBELL. JAXU ARY 31, 1879.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House aml ordered to be printed. l\fr. BRAGG, from the Committee on Militar;y Affairs, submitted the following REPORT: [To accompany bill H. R. 6271.1 · The Oormnittee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred a communica­ tion from the Secretary of War, recommending the passctge of an cwt for the relief of Oapt. J. B. Campbell, of the United States Army, beg lea1Je to report: · That they have carefully considePed said communication and accom- · panying documents, and recommend the passage of the bill prepared by the committee. WAR DEPARTl\:t:lJ:XT, Washington City, February 15, 1 78. The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the Honse of Representatives a copy of a communication from Capt.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Document
    Case 3:17-cv-00733-L-JLBCase MDL No. 2786 Document Document 40 88 Filed Filed 08/15/17 08/02/17 PageID.566 Page 1 of Page5 1 of 5 UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Aug 15 2017 s/ joanag IN RE: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUESTS REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 13769 MDL No. 2786 ORDER DENYING TRANSFER Before the Panel:* Defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),1 move to centralize thirteen Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions in the District of District of Columbia. The actions, which are pending in thirteen districts, are listed on the attached Schedule A. Plaintiffs, which are various affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose centralization. If the Panel grants the Section 1407 motion over their objections, plaintiffs ask that the action in the Eastern District of Michigan be excluded, and that the litigation be centralized in the Eastern District of Virginia or, alternatively, in the District of Maine or the Western District of Washington. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny Defendants’ motion. The actions arguably share a limited number of factual issues arising out of FOIA requests made by plaintiffs for records concerning CBP’s interpretation and implementation – at local international airports and, in the Eastern District of Michigan case, U.S./Canada border crossings – of the January 27, 2017, Executive Order No. 13769, titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” as well as any judicial order or executive directive issued regarding the Executive Order.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Related Case Pursuant to Civil Lr 3-12 To
    Case4:09-cv-02306-CW(7 Document253 Filed01/29/10 Page1 of 7 ( oOA 1 CRAIG J. CANNIZZO (State Bar No. 70379) 4 MARK E. REAGAN (State Bar No. 143438) 2 GREG B SHERMAN (State Bar No. 253832) •4(//4 (Z5S HOOPER, LUNDY & BOOKMAN, INC. 3 575 Market Street, Suite 2300 7 F! San Francisco, California 94105 -t‘‘r, ‘c so 4 Telephone: (415) 875-8500 c. cYc Facsimile: (415) 875-8519 5 E-Mail: gshermanhea1th-Iaw.com Efiiing 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 0, ‘4, 11 CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC CASE NO. 0, 12 AUTHORITIES, et al., 03441 a )V)Qx 13 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF RELATED CASE ) -< PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 3-12 TO BE w<. .1 14 vs. FILED IN CASE NO. c. 09-02306 (CW); -I-- -o ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 15 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD JU’,,5 of the State of California; JOHN A. 5<Zr. BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL :a::< 16 WAGNER, Director of the California L.R. 7-11 )r-z1 Department of Social Services; DAVID - (i)•• 17 MAXWELL-JOLLY, Director of the CLASS ACTION Ui California Department of Health Care 18 Services; JOHN CHIANG, California State The Honorable Claudia Wilken Controller, 19 Defendant. 20 21 22 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a related case Calfornia Association ofPublic Authorities 24 et at v. Schwarzenegger et al, was filed on January 25, 2010, in the United State District Court for 25 the Northern District of California.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Northern District of California
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF CASE TO A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR TRIAL Pursuant to General Order 44, the Assignment Plan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, this case has been randomly assigned to a Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may conduct all proceedings in a case, including all pretrial and trial proceedings, entry of judgment and post-trial motions. Appeal will be directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Attached is a form to complete to indicate whether you consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge or decline to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge. This form is also available from the Court’s website: cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. You are free to withhold consent without adverse consequences. If any party declines, the case will be reassigned to a district judge. If you are the plaintiff or removing party in this case, you must file your consent/declination form within 14 days of receipt of this notice. Each other party must file its consent/declination form within 14 days of appearing in the case. The plaintiff or removing party must serve a copy of this notice upon all other parties to this action. STANDING ORDER FOR ALL JUDGES OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CONTENTS OF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT All judges of the Northern District of California require identical information in Joint Case Management Statements filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Northern District Of
    Case 4:18-cv-06810-DMR Document 8-1 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 27 1 Lee Gelernt* Jennifer Chang Newell (SBN 233033) Judy Rabinovitz* Cody Wofsy (SBN 294179) 2 Omar C. Jadwat* Julie Veroff** (SBN 310161) Anand Balakrishnan* ACLU FOUNDATION 3 Celso Perez**(SBN 304924) IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT ACLU FOUNDATION 39 Drumm Street 4 IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT San Francisco, CA 94111 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor T: (415) 343-0770 5 New York, NY 10004 F: (415) 395-0950 T: (212) 549-2660 [email protected] 6 F: (212) 549-2654 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 7 [email protected] [email protected] 8 [email protected] [email protected] 9 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional counsel listed on following page) 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Al Otro Lado; 13 Innovation Law Lab; and Central American Case No.: 18-cv-06810 Resource Center in Los Angeles, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN v. SUPPORT OF 16 MOTION FOR TEMPORARY Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, in RESTRAINING ORDER 17 his official capacity; Matthew G. Whitaker, Acting Attorney General, in his official capacity; U.S. 18 Department of Justice; James McHenry, Director IMMIGRATION ACTION of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, 19 in his official capacity; the Executive Office for Immigration Review; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, 20 Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; 21 Lee Francis Cissna, Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in his 22 official capacity; U.S.
    [Show full text]