DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 20-685 In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SIERRA CLUB, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI JEFFREY B. WALL Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK Acting Assistant Attorney General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Counselor to the Solicitor General SOPAN JOSHI Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General MATTHEW GUARNIERI Assistant to the Solicitor General H. THOMAS BYRON III EDWARD HIMMELFARB MICHAEL SHIH Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED If the President declares “a national emergency in ac- cordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces,” the Secretary of Defense has express statutory authority to “undertake military construction projects * * * not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to sup- port such use of the armed forces.” 10 U.S.C. 2808(a). “Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.” Ibid. In 2019, following the President’s declaration of a national emer- gency requiring the use of the armed forces at the southern border, the then-Secretary of Defense author- ized 11 military construction projects involving border barriers pursuant to Section 2808. The questions pre- sented are as follows: 1. Whether respondents have a cognizable cause of action to obtain review of the Secretary’s compliance with Section 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated but un- obligated funds for the military construction projects being authorized. 2. Whether the Secretary exceeded his statutory au- thority under Section 2808 in reprioritizing appropri- ated funds for the military construction projects being authorized. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are Donald J. Trump, in his official ca- pacity as President of the United States; Steven T. Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; Christopher C. Miller, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense; David Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security; Ryan D. McCarthy, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army; Kenneth J. Braithwaite, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy; Barbara M. Barrett, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Air Force; the United States; the De- partment of the Treasury; the Department of Defense; the Department of the Interior; and the Department of Homeland Security.* Respondents are the Sierra Club; the Southern Bor- der Communities Coalition; and the States of Califor- nia, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Wisconsin. * Acting Secretary Miller and Secretaries Braithwaite and Bar- rett are substituted as parties for their predecessors in office pur- suant to Rule 35.3 of the Rules of this Court. (II) RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (N.D. Cal.): Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-892 (May 24, 2019) (preliminary injunction in Section 8005 litigation) Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-892 (June 28, 2019) (partial final judgment in Section 8005 litigation) California v. Trump, No. 19-cv-872 (June 28, 2019) (same) Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-cv-892 (Dec. 11, 2019) (partial final judgment in Section 2808 litigation) California v. Trump, No. 19-cv-872 (Dec. 11, 2019) (same) United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.): Sierra Club v. Trump, Nos. 19-16102 and 19-16300 (July 3, 2019) (denying stay pending appeal of Section 8005 injunction) Sierra Club v. Trump, Nos. 19-16102 and 19-16300 (June 26, 2020) (affirming in Section 8005 appeal) California v. Trump, Nos. 19-16299 and 19-16336 (June 26, 2020) (same) Sierra Club v. Trump, Nos. 19-17501, 19-17502, and 20-15044 (Oct. 9, 2020) (affirming in consolidated Section 2808 appeals) Supreme Court of the United States: Trump v. Sierra Club, No. 19A60 (July 26, 2019) (granting stay of Section 8005 injunction) Trump v. Sierra Club, No. 20-138 (Oct. 19, 2020) (granting certiorari in Section 8005 litigation) (III) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction ................................................................................... 2 Statutory provisions involved ...................................................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 A. Statutory background ............................................... 4 B. The challenged projects ............................................ 4 C. Prior proceedings ...................................................... 8 1. The Section 8005 litigation ................................. 8 2. The Section 2808 litigation ............................... 11 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 16 I. The decision below is incorrect .................................... 17 A. Respondents lack any cause of action to obtain judicial review of whether the Secretary exceeded his authority under Section 2808 .......... 17 B. The Secretary fully complied with Section 2808 ... 28 II. The questions presented warrant review .................... 32 Conclusion ................................................................................... 34 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Oct. 9, 2020) ......... 1a Appendix B — District court order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment and denying defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment (Dec. 11, 2019) ....... 104a Appendix C — Court of appeals order (Oct. 26, 2020) ...... 173a Appendix D — Court of appeals order (Dec. 30, 2019) ..... 175a Appendix E — Constitutional and statutory provisions .... 177a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015)....................................... 18, 19, 26, 27, 32 Ayestas v. Davis, 138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018) ....................... 15, 31 (V) VI Cases—Continued: Page Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)................ 25, 26, 27, 28 Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) ........................ 25 Boston Stock Exch. v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U.S. 318 (1977).............................................................. 26 Clarke v. Securities Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (1987) .............................................................................. 19, 27 Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467 (1943) .............. 31 Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) ........................... 23, 24 Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002)......................... 27 Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) ............................... 26 Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735 (2020) .......................... 27 Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) ......................................... 18, 25, 26 Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) .................................................................................... 28 Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012) ........ 13, 18, 21, 22 Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) .............................................................................. 18, 27 Trump v. Sierra Club, 140 S. Ct. 1 (2019), mot. to lift stay denied, 140 S. Ct. 2620 (2020) ..... 3, 7, 9, 10 United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359 (2014) .......................... 30 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982).............................................................. 26 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) ................................................................. 32 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).............................................................. 24 Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) ........................ 20, 27 VII Constitution, statutes, regulation, and rules: Page U.S. Const.: Art. I: § 8, Cl. 3 (Dormant Commerce Clause) ................... 26 § 9, Cl. 7 (Appropriations Clause) ................... passim Art. III .............................................................................. 20 Art. VI, § 9 (Supremacy Clause) .................................... 26 Amend. I (Establishment Clause) ................................. 26 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. .................................................................................... 10 5 U.S.C. 702 ...................................................................... 18 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-245, Div. A, Tit. VIII, § 8005, 132 Stat. 2999 ............................................................. passim National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ............... 4 50 U.S.C. 1631 .................................................................... 5 10 U.S.C. 284 ..................................................... 3, 6, 8, 17, 177a 10 U.S.C. 284(a) ..................................................................... 17 10 U.S.C. 284(b)(7)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I Have Been Working on a Book, Stand-Ins, on The
    Workshop Participants: I have been working on a book, Stand-Ins, on the causes and consequences of temporary leadership in government, business, and religion, which is aimed at a more general audience. Given recent events, I have returned to more traditional scholarship to explore some of the issues involving temporary leadership (and the lack thereof) in federal agencies, among other topics. This paper is brand new, incomplete, and unpolished. Given its length, I would recommend reading the Introduction (pp.1-5), Scope of Actings (pp.13-27), and Statutory Questions (pp.33-42). I look forward to your reactions and suggestions for improvement. AJO Actings Anne Joseph O’Connell Stanford Law School April 1, 2019 Please do not cite or distribute beyond the workshop without permission. I. Introduction Stand-in leaders do not usually command much attention. They step up in moments of need to keep organizations running. The stereotypical interim leader is therefore a caretaker—in place to maintain stability; not to implement major changes. But not all interim leaders are caretakers. Some are auditioning for the permanent job. And a few are there to shake up the organization—so-called “fixers”. The scope of temporary leadership is vast—after all, traditional leaders are transitory, and selection procedures for more permanent leaders take time. On the public side, there are interim leaders in all branches of the federal government. In Congress, there are appointed senators, chosen by their state’s governor to fill in for an elected senator who has died or resigned, perhaps in disgrace or perhaps to take a different job.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERIOR Energy Companies Paid Bernhardt More Than $80K Last Year
    INTERIOR Energy companies paid Bernhardt more than $80K last year Corbin Hiar, E&E News reporter Published: Thursday, May 11, 2017 David Bernhardt filed documents ahead of his confirmation hearing to be Interior deputy secretary that said he will recuse himself for a year from issues involving companies he had lobbied for. Photo courtesy of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. Interior deputy secretary nominee David Bernhardt earned at least $80,000 last year working for a host of energy and environmental interests, disclosure forms show. He agreed to recuse himself for one year from matters involving any of the companies as well as other former clients of his or his law firm, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. The documents Bernhardt filed in order to advance through the confirmation process were signed off on earlier this week by the Interior Department's top ethics official. Bernhardt's financial disclosure report was filed with the independent Office of Government Ethics on March 6, more than a month before the White House formally nominated him for Interior's second-highest post (Greenwire, April 28). The disclosures show Bernhardt made more than $1.1 million last year from Brownstein Hyatt, where he is a partner, and a holding company of the law firm. The disclosure report lists the following clients as paying him at least $5,000 for his legal services in 2016: Targa Resources Co. LLC, Noble Energy Co. LLC, NRG Energy Inc., Sempra Energy, Lafarge North America - Western Region, Safari Club International Foundation, Active Network LLC, Statoil Gulf Services LLC, Cobalt International Energy, Rosemont Copper Co., Independent Petroleum Association of America, Taylor Energy Co.
    [Show full text]
  • The People Shaping the Trump Administration
    The People Shaping the Trump Administration Despite Running on a Pledge to ‘Drain the Swamp’ and Crack Down on Special Interests, Donald Trump Has Filled His Transition Team With Lobbyists and Others With Potential Conflicts November 16, 2016 – Donald Trump rode to the White House by raging about alleged rampant corruption in Washington and pledging to “drain the swamp.” Each of the five points in the ethics platform he issued in October focused on diminishing the influence of lobbyists.1 These included a promise to impose a five-year ban on former executive branch officials lobbying the federal government. Trump further promised to crack down on special interest-influence by expanding the definition of lobbyist to include consultants and others who trade on inside government information and expertise.2 But Trump’s nascent transition team, which will shape his administration, is swarming with lobbyists and other special interests. Many of the lobbyists are working for the transition on areas for which they currently are lobbying the federal government. Meanwhile, many of those who aren’t lobbyists appear to have potential conflicts of interest. Vice president-elect Mike Pence reportedly said on November 15 that the transition team would be purged of lobbyists, but the transition team has not made the point official.3 Even if true, that remedy would not address cases such as a defense contractor working on defense interests, or a lawyer for health care interests working on health care reform. Here are brief summaries of individuals who have been reported in the media as overseeing agencies or policies for Trump’s transition team.
    [Show full text]
  • A Report to the President U.S
    A Report to the President U.S. Department of the Interior 2017-2021 REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT 2017-2021 U.S. Department of the Interior JANUARY 15, 2021 Report to the President Report to the President U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT The Department of the Interior (Department) has focused on improving the ways we serve the American public, while moving forward with your policy priorities. In doing so, the Department has made incredible progress furthering conservation stewardship, expanding opportunities to hunt and fish on public lands, improving core administrative functions, creating a common-sense regulatory regime, and enhancing our Nation’s energy independence. On behalf of the more than 65,000 Secretary David L. Bernhardt dedicated employees who work diligently across our Nation to accomplish important missions in service to the American people, I am pleased to present the Department’s Summary of Actions Report for 2017- 2021. This report highlights the Department’s major and historic achievements toward fulfilling your vision on behalf of all Americans. David L. Bernhardt Secretary of the Interior Page 1 Report to the President PURPOSE AND INTRODUCTION Secretary Bernhardt and First Lady Melania Trump at Grand Teton National Park From the beginning days of the Trump-Pence Administration, President Donald J. Trump gave clear direction to the Department of the Interior (Department, DOI, or Interior). He set priorities and ambitious goals, challenging Federal agencies through Governmentwide Executive orders, Presidential memoranda, and other actions to deliver better results for the American people. Interior has worked relentlessly to implement the President’s agenda for the betterment of our society and economy.
    [Show full text]
  • New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse; Final Rule, 81 Fed
    Case 1:18-cv-01138-JB-JFR Document 43 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 241 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO NORTHERN NEW MEXICO STOCKMAN’S ASSOCIATION and OTERO COUNTY CATTLEMAN’S ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs, vs. No. CIV 18-1138 JB\JFR UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE and GREG SHEEHAN, Principal Deputy Director & Acting Director of the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, in his official capacity, Defendants, and CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY and WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Intervenors. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief in Support of Petition for Review, filed August 8, 2019 (Doc. 26)(“Petition”); (ii) Petitioners’ Brief on Remedy, filed December 6, 2019 (Doc. 40)(“P. Remedy Brief”); (iii) Federal Respondents’ Brief on Remedy, filed December 6, 2019 (Doc. 41)(“D. Remedy Brief”); and (iv) Respondent- Intervenors’ Brief on Remedy, filed December 6, 2019 (Doc. 42)(“I. Remedy Brief”). The Court held a hearing on October 31, 2019. The primary issues are: (i) whether Plaintiffs Northern NM Stockman’s Association (“Northern NM Stockman’s Association”) and Otero Cattleman’s Association (“Otero Cattleman’s Association”)(collectively, “the Stockman’s Associations”) suffer economic injury to establish associational standing under Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America to challenge the decision made by Defendants United States Fish & Wildlife Service and its Principal Deputy director and acting director, Greg Sheehan (collectively, “Fish & Wildlife”), to designate land on which members of the Stockman’s Associations graze cattle as critical habitat designation1 (“the designation”) for the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse (“Jumping Mouse”); (ii) whether Fish & Wildlife’s use of the “incremental effects” 1The Endangered Species Act requires Fish & Wildlife to designate “critical habitat” for all species that Fish & Wildlife lists as threatened or endangered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Executive Branch's Limited Authority To
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2020 The Rocky Road to Energy Dominance: The Executive Branch’s Limited Authority to Modify and Revoke Withdrawals of Federal Lands from Mineral Production Robert L. Glicksman Hillary M. Hoffman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons The Rocky Road to Energy Dominance: The Executive Branch’s Limited Authority to Modify and Revoke Withdrawals of Federal Lands from Mineral Production Hillary M. Hoffmann* & Robert L. Glicksman** 33 GEO. J. ENVTL L., Issue # 2 (forthcoming) Abstract The Trump Administration’s implementation of its America First Energy Plan, whose goal is achieving U.S. “energy dominance,” has relied heavily upon public mineral development. Mineral development on federal lands is largely governed by statute. The statutory legal mechanisms by which the Executive Branch can “open” or “close” an area of federal lands to mineral development, whether onshore or offshore, are withdrawal, modification, and revocation. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) are the primary statutes that govern onshore and offshore mineral development on over 2 billion acres of federal lands. Both FLPMA and OCSLA authorize withdrawals, which the Executive can use to place federal lands off limits to mineral development. FLPMA also authorizes modifications and revocations, which can remove constraints on such development. The Trump Administration has relied on both statutes in its quest to expand the areas that are available for private mineral disposition through modification or revocation of withdrawals by prior administrations. The authority provided by FLPMA and OCSLA to determine the availability of federal lands for mineral development is subject to a series of substantive and procedural constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 1A APPENDIX a UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS, TENTH CIRCUIT ———— Nos
    APPENDIX 1a APPENDIX A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH CIRCUIT ———— Nos. 17-7042, 17-7044 ———— The CHEROKEE NATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior; TARA KATUK MAC LEAN SWEENEY, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; EDDIE STREATER, in his official capacity as Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants, and UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA; UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Intervenors Defendants-Appellants. ———— 2a THE CHEROKEE NATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior; TARA KATUK MAC LEAN SWEENEY, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior; EDDIE STREATER, in his official capacity as Eastern Oklahoma Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants-Appellants, and UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA; UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEEE INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, Intervenors-Defendants. ———— Filed September 5, 2019 ———— OPINION EID, Circuit Judge. Intervenor-Appellant the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in eastern Oklahoma. The UKB are descended from the historical Cherokee Indian tribe. In 2000, the UKB purchased an undevel- oped 76-acre parcel of land near Tahlequah, Oklahoma, with the intention of developing it into a tribal and cultural center (Subject Tract, or Subject Parcel). The 3a Subject Parcel sits entirely within the boundaries of the former reservation of Appellees the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Nation).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Government Officials (May 2020)
    Updated 12/07/2020 GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS PRESIDENT President Donald John Trump VICE PRESIDENT Vice President Michael Richard Pence HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II Attorney General William Barr Secretary of Interior David Bernhardt Secretary of Energy Danny Ray Brouillette Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Benjamin Carson Sr. Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao Secretary of Education Elisabeth DeVos (Acting) Secretary of Defense Christopher D. Miller Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin Secretary of Agriculture George “Sonny” Perdue III Secretary of State Michael Pompeo Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Jr. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert Wilkie Jr. (Acting) Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Ralph Abraham Jr. Alma Adams Robert Aderholt Peter Aguilar Andrew Lamar Alexander Jr. Richard “Rick” Allen Colin Allred Justin Amash Mark Amodei Kelly Armstrong Jodey Arrington Cynthia “Cindy” Axne Brian Babin Donald Bacon James “Jim” Baird William Troy Balderson Tammy Baldwin James “Jim” Edward Banks Garland Hale “Andy” Barr Nanette Barragán John Barrasso III Karen Bass Joyce Beatty Michael Bennet Amerish Babulal “Ami” Bera John Warren “Jack” Bergman Donald Sternoff Beyer Jr. Andrew Steven “Andy” Biggs Gus M. Bilirakis James Daniel Bishop Robert Bishop Sanford Bishop Jr. Marsha Blackburn Earl Blumenauer Richard Blumenthal Roy Blunt Lisa Blunt Rochester Suzanne Bonamici Cory Booker John Boozman Michael Bost Brendan Boyle Kevin Brady Michael K. Braun Anthony Brindisi Morris Jackson “Mo” Brooks Jr. Susan Brooks Anthony G. Brown Sherrod Brown Julia Brownley Vernon G. Buchanan Kenneth Buck Larry Bucshon Theodore “Ted” Budd Timothy Burchett Michael C.
    [Show full text]
  • Hillforts: Britain, Ireland and the Nearer Continent
    Hillforts: Britain, Ireland and the Nearer Continent Papers from the Atlas of Hillforts of Britain and Ireland Conference, June 2017 edited by Gary Lock and Ian Ralston Archaeopress Archaeology Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978-1-78969-226-6 ISBN 978-1-78969-227-3 (e-Pdf) © Authors and Archaeopress 2019 Cover images: A selection of British and Irish hillforts. Four-digit numbers refer to their online Atlas designations (Lock and Ralston 2017), where further information is available. Front, from top: White Caterthun, Angus [SC 3087]; Titterstone Clee, Shropshire [EN 0091]; Garn Fawr, Pembrokeshire [WA 1988]; Brusselstown Ring, Co Wicklow [IR 0718]; Back, from top: Dun Nosebridge, Islay, Argyll [SC 2153]; Badbury Rings, Dorset [EN 3580]; Caer Drewyn Denbighshire [WA 1179]; Caherconree, Co Kerry [IR 0664]. Bottom front and back: Cronk Sumark [IOM 3220]. Credits: 1179 courtesy Ian Brown; 0664 courtesy James O’Driscoll; remainder Ian Ralston. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Severn, Gloucester This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Contents List of Figures ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ii
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Regionality in the Iron Age Settlements and Landscape of West Wales
    STONES, BONES AND HOMES: An Examination of Regionality in the Iron Age Settlements and Landscape of West Wales Submitted by: Geraldine Louise Mate Student Number 31144980 Submitted on the 3rd of November 2003, in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a Bachelor of Arts with Honours Degree School of Social Science, University of Queensland This thesis represents original research undertaken for a Bachelor of Arts Honours Degree at the University of Queensland, and was completed during 2003. The interpretations presented in this thesis are my own and do not represent the view of any other individual or group Geraldine Louise Mate ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page i Declaration ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abstract ix Acknowledgements x 1. The Iron Age in West Wales 1 1.1 Research Question 1 1.2 Area of Investigation 2 1.3 An Approach to the Iron Age 2 1.4 Rationale of Thesis 5 1.5 Thesis Content and Organisation 6 2. Perspectives on Iron Age Britain 7 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 Perspectives on the Iron Age 7 2.2.1 Progression of Interpretations 8 2.2.2 General Picture of Iron Age Society 11 2.2.3 Iron Age Settlements and Structures, and Their Part in Ritual 13 2.2.4 Pre-existing Landscape 20 2.3 Interpretive Approaches to the Iron Age 20 2.3.1 Landscape 21 2.3.2 Material Culture 27 2.4 Methodology 33 2.4.1 Assessment of Methods Available 33 2.4.2 Methodology Selected 35 2.4.3 Rationale and Underlying Assumptions for the Methodology Chosen 36 2.5 Summary 37 iii 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Group Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Case No. 4:18
    Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 110 Filed 06/03/19 Page 1 of 49 1 Nathan Matthews, CA Bar No. 264248 Sierra Club 2 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300 3 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 977-5695 4 Fax: (510) 208-3140 [email protected] 5 Counsel for Plaintiff Sierra Club 6 (Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page) 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SIERRA CLUB; CENTER FOR ) BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; DINÉ ) 11 CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ) ENVIRONMENT; EARTHWORKS; ) 12 FORT BERTHOLD PROTECTORS OF ) 13 WATER AND EARTH RIGHTS; ) SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ) 14 ALLIANCE, THE WILDERNESS ) SOCIETY; and WESTERN RESOURCE ) 15 ADVOCATES, ) ) Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG 16 Plaintiffs, ) 17 ) Related to Case No. 4:18-cv-00521-HSG v. ) 18 ) DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official ) 19 capacity as Secretary of the Interior; ) CITIZEN GROUP PLAINTIFFS’ 20 UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MANAGEMENT; and UNITED STATES ) 21 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ) ) Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 22 Defendants. ) Date: December 5, 2019 23 ) Time: 2:00 p.m. ) Location: Courtroom 2, 4th Floor 24 ) 1301 Clay St., Oakland, CA 94612 ) 25 ) ) 26 ) 27 ) ) 28 Citizen Group Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment Case No. 4:18-cv-00524-HSG, related to Case No. 4:18-cv-000521-HSG Case 4:18-cv-00524-HSG Document 110 Filed 06/03/19 Page 2 of 49 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 5, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as 3 possible, this motion will be heard before the Honorable Haywood S.
    [Show full text]
  • NR-Ryan Zinke NR = Non-Responsive
    NR-Ryan Zinke NR = Non-Responsive Fri Sep 1, 2017 All day Doggy Day Fri Sep 1, 2017 - Sat Sep 2, 2017 Video call: NR Calendar: NR-Ryan Zinke Created by: Caroline Boulton 9am - 9:30am Daily Scheduling & Communications Meeting Where: Office of the Secretary Calendar: NR-Ryan Zinke Created by: Leila Getto Who: Scott Hommel, Downey Magallanes, Laura Rigas, NR-Ryan Zinke 9:30am - 10am Weekly Meeting with Deputy Secretary Where: Office of the Secretary Calendar: NR-Ryan Zinke Created by: Caroline Boulton Who: Gareth Rees, David Bernhardt, NR-Ryan Zinke 11am - 11:30am Meeting with Governor Hogan Where: Secretary's Office Calendar: NR-Ryan Zinke Created by: Leila Getto Who: Todd Willens, Daniel Jorjani, Christine Bauserman, David Bernhardt,Downey Magallanes, Tami Heilemann Description: Attending with the Governor will be his Deputy Chief of Staff JeannieRiccio and Director of Federal Relations Tiffany Waddell. Amanda AllenDirector of Scheduling & Executive Assistant to the Governor Office ofGovernor Larry Hogan 100 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland [email protected] 410-974-5910 (office) 11:30am - 12pm Depart for Pentagon Video call: NR Calendar: NR-Ryan Zinke Created by: Caroline Boulton 12pm - 1:30pm Lunch with Sec. Mattis Video call: NR Where: Pentagon Calendar: NR-Ryan Zinke Created by: Caroline Boulton Who: Elinor Renner, Scott Hommel, NR-Ryan Zinke Description: Sec. Mattis' office 1:30pm - 2pm Drive to DOI Video call: NR Calendar: NR-Ryan Zinke Created by: Caroline Boulton NR-Ryan Zinke 2pm - 3pm Meeting to Review Gifts to the
    [Show full text]