Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 66-2 Filed 05/01/19 Page 1 of 37 1 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Irvin B. Nathan* 2 Robert N. Weiner* Andrew T. Tutt* 3 Kaitlin Konkel* Samuel F. Callahan* 4 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20001 5 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 [email protected] 6 *Pro hac vice application forthcoming 7 Douglas A. Winthrop (SBN 183532) Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor 8 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 9 [email protected] 10 Counsel for Amici Curiae Former Members of Congress 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 OAKLAND DIVISION 15 16 SIERRA CLUB, et al., Case No.: 4:19-cv-00892-HSG 17 Plaintiffs, BRIEF OF FORMER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAE IN 18 v. SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 19 DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, in his official capacity, et. al., 20 P.I. Hearing: May 17, 2019, at 10:00 AM Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Brief of Former Members of Congress as Amici Curiae (4:19-cv-00892-HSG) Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 66-2 Filed 05/01/19 Page 2 of 37 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... iii 3 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................................................................................................1 4 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................2 5 ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................3 6 I. THE PRESIDENT HAS DECLARED A PATENTLY FICTITIOUS EMERGENCY ..........3 7 II. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS UNDERMINING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS 8 BY USURPING THE APPROPRIATIONS POWER VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN CONGRESS .......................................................................................................................6 9 A. Congress Must Appropriate Money Before the Executive Branch Can Spend It........6 10 B. Congress’s Exclusive Power over Appropriations Is Critical to our 11 Constitutional Structure .............................................................................................10 12 C. Only The Courts Can Check Executive Branch Violations of the Appropriations Power ................................................................................................11 13 III. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS EXCEEDING THE LIMITS OF 14 “THE EXECUTIVE POWER” ..............................................................................................12 15 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................16 16 ATTACHMENT A—LIST OF AMICI CURIAE 17 ATTACHMENT B—JOINT DECLARATION OF FORMER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - i - Brief of Former Members of Congress as Amici Curiae (4:19-cv-00892-HSG) Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 66-2 Filed 05/01/19 Page 3 of 37 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 2 Cases 3 Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO, Local 1647 v. FLRA, 4 388 F.3d 405 (3d Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................8 5 Bowsher v. Synar, 6 478 U.S. 714 (1986) .................................................................................................................11 7 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 ................................................................................................................................15 8 Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 9 301 U.S. 308 (1937) ...................................................................................................................7 10 Clinton v. City of New York, 11 524 U.S. 417 (1998) .........................................................................................................8, 9, 10 12 Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008) ...........................................................................................12 13 Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform v. Holder, 14 979 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) .............................................................................................12 15 Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 16 478 U.S. 833 (1986) .................................................................................................................11 17 Consumer’s Union of U.S., Inc. v. Kissinger, 506 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ...................................................................................................9 18 Dames & Moore v. Regan, 19 453 U.S. 654 (1981) .................................................................................................................13 20 Dep’t of the Navy v. FLRA, 21 665 F.3d 1339 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................8 22 Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) .................................................................................................................10 23 Hart’s Adm’r v. U.S., 24 16 Ct. Cl. 459 (1880), aff’d sub nom. Hart v. U.S., 118 U.S. 62 (1886) ...................................8 25 Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 F. Cas. 252 (C.C.D. Cal. 1879) ...........................................................................................12 26 27 INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) .............................................................................................................9, 15 28 - ii - Brief of Former Members of Congress as Amici Curiae (4:19-cv-00892-HSG) Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 66-2 Filed 05/01/19 Page 4 of 37 1 King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) ...............................................................................................................5 2 Lynch v. Alworth–Stephens Co., 3 267 U.S. 364 (1925) ...................................................................................................................4 4 Marbury v. Madison, 5 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).....................................................................................................2 6 Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) .................................................................................................................12 7 Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 8 501 U.S. 252 (1991) .................................................................................................................10 9 Mistretta v. United States, 10 488 U.S. 361 (1989) .................................................................................................................11 11 Myers v. U.S., 272 U.S. 52 (1926) ...................................................................................................................11 12 N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 13 458 U.S. 50 (1982) ...................................................................................................................11 14 Nixon v. United States, 15 506 U.S. 224 (1993) .................................................................................................................16 16 NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014) .............................................................................................................11 17 Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 18 496 U.S. 414 (1990) ...................................................................................................................7 19 Powell v. McCormack, 20 395 U.S. 486 (1969) .................................................................................................................16 21 Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989) .................................................................................................................10 22 Reeside v. Walker, 23 52 U.S. 272 (1850) .....................................................................................................................7 24 Rochester Pure Waters Dist. v. EPA, 960 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................8 25 26 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ...................................................................................................................5 27 Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 28 571 U.S. 220 (2014) ...................................................................................................................4 - iii - Brief of Former Members of Congress as Amici Curiae (4:19-cv-00892-HSG) Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 66-2 Filed 05/01/19 Page 5 of 37 1 United States v. AT&T, 551 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1976) .................................................................................................12 2 United States v. Estate of Romani, 3 523 U.S. 517 (1998) ...................................................................................................................6 4 United States v. MacCollom, 5 426 U.S. 317 (1976) ...................................................................................................................7 6 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) .................................................................................................5, 13, 14, 15 7 Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 8 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) .............................................................................................................13