No. 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) ..................................................