Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 213-1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 1 of 39 1 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 2 Irvin B. Nathan Robert N. Weiner 3 Andrew T. Tutt Kaitlin Konkel 4 Samuel F. Callahan 601 Massachusetts Ave, NW 5 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 942-5000 6 [email protected] 7 Douglas A. Winthrop 8 10th Floor Three Embarcadero Center 9 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 471-3100 10 [email protected] 11 Counsel for Amici Curiae Former Members of Congress 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND DIVISION 16 SIERRA CLUB, et al., 17 Case No. 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Plaintiffs, 18 BRIEF OF FORMER MEMBERS OF v. CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAE IN 19 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States, MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 20 in his official capacity, et al., JUDGMENT 21 Defendants. Hearing: Nov. 20, 2019, at 10:00 AM 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 213-1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 2 of 39 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. ii 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................iii 4 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ......................................................................................................1 5 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................2 6 ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................................3 7 I. THE PRESIDENT HAS DECLARED A PATENTLY FICTITIOUS EMERGENCY ..........3 8 II. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS UNDERMINING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS BY 9 USURPING THE APPROPRIATIONS POWER VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN CONGRESS .............................................................................................................................6 10 A. Congress Must Appropriate Money Before the Executive Branch Can Spend It........6 11 B. No Appropriation Authorizes the Executive’s Spending Here ..................................10 12 C. Congress’s Exclusive Power Over Appropriations Is Critical to our Constitutional 13 Structure .....................................................................................................................11 14 D. Only The Courts Can Check Executive Branch Violations of the Appropriations Power .........................................................................................................................12 15 III. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS EXCEEDING THE LIMITS OF “THE EXECUTIVE 16 POWER” ................................................................................................................................14 17 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................18 18 ATTACHMENT A—LIST OF AMICI CURIAE ...........................................................................19 19 ATTACHMENT B—JOINT DECLARATION OF FORMER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ..............................................................................................20 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - ii - Brief of Former Members of Congress as Amici Curiae (4:19-cv-00892-HSG) Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 213-1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 3 of 39 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) .................................................................................................................12 7 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 ................................................................................................................................17 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, 11 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) .................................................................................................................12 17 Consumer’s Union of U.S., Inc. v. Kissinger, 506 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ...................................................................................................9 18 Dalton v. Specter, 19 511 U.S. 462 (1994) .................................................................................................................13 20 Dames & Moore v. Regan, 21 453 U.S. 654 (1981) .................................................................................................................14 22 Dep’t of the Navy v. FLRA, 665 F.3d 1339 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................7 23 Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 24 561 U.S. 477 (2010) .................................................................................................................11 25 Hart’s Adm’r v. U.S., 16 Ct. Cl. 459 (1880), aff’d sub nom. Hart v. U.S., 118 U.S. 62 (1886) ...................................7 26 27 Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 F. Cas. 252 (C.C.D. Cal. 1879) ...........................................................................................13 28 - iii - Brief of Former Members of Congress as Amici Curiae (4:19-cv-00892-HSG) Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 213-1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 4 of 39 1 INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) .............................................................................................................9, 17 2 King v. Burwell, 3 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) ...............................................................................................................5 4 Lynch v. Alworth–Stephens Co., 5 267 U.S. 364 (1925) ...................................................................................................................4 6 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).....................................................................................................2 7 Medellin v. Texas, 8 552 U.S. 491 (2008) .................................................................................................................14 9 Metro. Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 10 501 U.S. 252 (1991) .................................................................................................................11 11 Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) .................................................................................................................12 12 Myers v. U.S., 13 272 U.S. 52 (1926) ...................................................................................................................12 14 N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 15 458 U.S. 50 (1982) ...................................................................................................................12 16 Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) .................................................................................................................17 17 NLRB v. Noel Canning, 18 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014) .............................................................................................................12 19 Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 20 496 U.S. 414 (1990) ...................................................................................................................7 21 Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) .................................................................................................................17 22 Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 23 491 U.S. 440 (1989) .................................................................................................................10 24 Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) .....................................................................................................................7 25 26 Rochester Pure Waters Dist. v. EPA, 960 F.2d 180 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................7 27 Roper v. Simmons, 28 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ...................................................................................................................5 - iv - Brief of Former Members of Congress as Amici Curiae (4:19-cv-00892-HSG) Case 4:19-cv-00892-HSG Document 213-1 Filed 10/18/19 Page 5 of 39 1 Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220 (2014) ...................................................................................................................4 2 United States v. AT&T, 3 551 F.2d 384 (D.C. Cir. 1976) .................................................................................................12