Sierra Club v. Trump, No. 19-16102 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Section 8005 and Section 9002 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019 does not authorize the Department of Defense's budgetary transfers to fund construction of the wall on the southern border of the United States in California, New Mexico, and Arizona.
The Ninth Circuit first held that Sierra Club and SBCC have established that their members satisfy the demands of Article III standing to challenge the Federal Defendants' actions. In this case, Sierra Club's thousands of members live near and frequently visit these areas along the U.S.-Mexico border to do a variety of activities; the construction of a border wall and related infrastructure will acutely injure their interests because DHS is proceeding with border wall construction without ensuring compliance with any federal or state environmental regulations designed to protect these interests; and the interests of Sierra Club's members in this lawsuit are germane to the organization's purpose. Furthermore, SBCC has alleged facts that support that it has standing to sue on behalf of itself and its member organizations. Sierra Club and SBCC have also shown that their injuries are fairly traceable to the challenged action of the Federal Defendants, and their injuries are likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
The panel held that neither Section 8005 nor any constitutional provision authorized DoD to transfer the funds at issue. The panel reaffirmed its holding in State of California, et al. v. Trump, et al., Nos. 19-16299 and 19-16336, slip op. at 37 (9th Cir. filed June 26, 2020), holding that Section 8005 did not authorize the transfer of funds at issue here because "the border wall was not an unforeseen military requirement," and "funding for the wall had been denied by Congress." The panel also held that Sierra Club was a proper party to challenge the Section 8005 transfers and that Sierra Club has both a constitutional and an ultra vires cause of action here. The panel explained that the Federal Defendants not only exceeded their delegated authority, but also violated an express constitutional prohibition designed to protect individual liberties. The panel considered the Federal Defendants' additional arguments, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is not to be construed as an exclusive remedy, and the APA does not displace all constitutional and equitable causes of action, and Sierra Club falls within the Appropriations Clause's zone of interests. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Sierra Club a permanent injunction enjoining the federal defendants from spending the funds at issue.
Court Description: Appropriations. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in an action brought by the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition (collectively the “Sierra Club”) challenging the Department of Defense’s budgetary transfers to fund construction of a wall on the southern border of the United States in California, New Mexico, and Arizona. At issue is whether Section 8005 and Section 9002 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019 (“Section 8005”) authorized the budgetary transfers to fund construction of the wall. The panel held that the Sierra Club had Article III standing to pursue its claims. Specifically, the panel held that Sierra Club’s thousands of members live near and frequently visit areas along the U.S.-Mexico border for hiking, birdwatching, photography, and other professional, scientific, recreational, and aesthetic activities; and construction of a border wall and related infrastructure will acutely injure these SIERRA CLUB V. TRUMP 3 interests because the Department of Homeland Security is proceeding with border wall construction without ensuring compliance with any federal or state environmental regulations designed to protect these interests. Additionally, the interests of Sierra Club’s members in the lawsuit are germane to the organization’s purpose. Similarly, the panel held that the Southern Border Communities Coalition alleged facts that support that it had standing to sue on behalf of itself and its member organizations. The panel further held that Sierra Club’s injuries were fairly traceable to the Section 8005 transfers. In addition, the panel held that the injury to Sierra Club members and Southern Border Communities Coalition was likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. In companion appeal State of California v. Trump, Nos. 19-16299 and 19-16336, slip op. (9th Cir. June 26, 2020) (published concurrently), the panel held that Section 8005 did not authorize the transfers of funds at issue here. The panel reaffirmed this holding here. The panel held that the Executive Branch lacked independent constitutional authority to authorize the transfer of funds. The panel noted that the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress. The panel held that the transfer of funds violated the Appropriations Clause, and, therefore, was unlawful. The panel held that the Sierra Club was a proper party to challenge the Section 8005 transfers, and concluded that Sierra Club had both a constitutional and an ultra vires cause of action. First, the panel held that where plaintiffs, like Sierra Club, establish that they satisfy the requirements of 4 SIERRA CLUB V. TRUMP Article III standing, they may invoke separation of powers constraints, like the Appropriations Clause, to challenge agency spending in excess of its delegated authority. Because the federal defendants not only exceeded their delegated authority, but also violated an express constitutional prohibition designed to protect individual liberties, the panel held that Sierra Club had a constitutional cause of action. Second, the panel held that the Sierra Club had an equitable ultra vires cause of action to challenge the Department of Defense’s transfer of funds. Where it is alleged that the Department of Defense has exceeded the statutory authority delegated by Section 8005, plaintiffs like Sierra Club can challenge this agency action. The panel rejected the federal defendants’ additional arguments. First, the federal defendants asserted that Sierra Club’s challenge must be construed as an Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) claim, rather than as a constitutional or ultra vivres cause of action. The panel held that the APA is not to be construed as an exclusive remedy, and the APA does not displace all constitutional and equitable causes of action. Second, the federal defendants asserted that the zone of interests test must apply to any challenge brought by Sierra Club, and that Section 8005 prescribes the relevant zone of interests. The panel held that Sierra Club fell within the Appropriations Clause’s zone of interests. The unconstitutional transfer of funds here infringed upon Sierra Club’s members’ liberty interests, harming their environmental, aesthetic, and recreational interests. The panel concluded that the Sierra Club had a cause of action to challenge the transfers. Finally, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Sierra Club a permanent injunction SIERRA CLUB V. TRUMP 5 enjoining the federal defendants from spending the funds at issue. First, the panel agreed with the district court that Sierra Club would suffer irreparable harm to its recreational and aesthetic interests absent injunction. Second, the panel agreed with the district court that the balance of equities and the public interest favored injunctive relief. The panel held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), did not require the panel to vacate the injunction. Judge Collins dissented. He agreed that at least the Sierra Club established Article III standing, but in his view the organizations lacked any cause of action to challenge the transfers. Even assuming that they had a cause of action Judge Collins would conclude that the transfers were lawful. Accordingly, he would reverse the district court’s partial summary judgment for the organizations and remand for an entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants. 6 SIERRA CLUB V. TRUMP
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 3, 2019.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.