`
`No. 19A60
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`___________________________________________
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET. AL.,
`Applicants,
`
`v.
`
`SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`___________________________________________
`
`On Application for a Stay Pending Appeal to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Pending Further Proceedings in this
`Court and Request for an Immediate Administrative Stay
`
`___________________________________________
`
`To the Honorable Elena Kagan,
`Associate Justice of the United States and
`Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit
`
`___________________________________________
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF, MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 33.2,
`AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF REP. ANDY BARR IN SUPPORT
`OF APPLICANTS
`
`___________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH
`
`Counsel of Record
`1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 700-1A
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 355-9452
`lj@larryjoseph.com
`
`
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. HAJEC
`Immigration Reform Law Institute
`25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 335
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 232-5590
`chajec@irli.org
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Movant and Amicus Curiae
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Table of Authorities ......................................................................................................... ii
`Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief ........................................................................... 1
`Motion for Leave to File under Rule 33.2 ...................................................................... 4
`Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Applicants .............................................................. 6
`Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6
`Standard of Review .......................................................................................................... 8
`Summary of Argument .................................................................................................... 8
`Argument ........................................................................................................................ 10
`I.
`The grant of a writ of certiorari is likely. .......................................................... 10
`II.
`The Government is likely to prevail .................................................................. 10
`A.
`The courts below lacked jurisdiction. ..................................................... 10
`1.
`The All Writs Act gives this Court jurisdiction now
`to preserve its future jurisdiction over the
`Government’s eventual petition for a writ of
`certiorari. ....................................................................................... 11
`Plaintiffs’ interests are insufficiently related to an
`“injury in fact” to satisfy Article III jurisdiction. ........................ 12
`Plaintiffs’ interests fall outside the relevant zones
`of interests. .................................................................................... 16
`Plaintiffs do not have standing under Havens
`Realty. ............................................................................................ 17
`Plaintiffs’ challenge to the transfer of funds — as
`distinct from the allocation of funds to a project —
`is not ripe. ...................................................................................... 20
`Sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs’ challenge. .......................... 21
`a.
`Plaintiffs cannot sue under the APA. ............................... 21
`b.
`Plaintiffs cannot bring a non-APA and pre-
`APA suit in equity. ............................................................. 23
`The Government is likely to prevail on the merits. ............................... 25
`1.
`These DoD projects qualify as “unforeseen” within
`the meaning of § 8005. .................................................................. 25
`CAA did not “deny” an item to DoD within the
`meaning of 8005. ........................................................................... 26
`III. The other stay criteria tip in the Government’s favor. .................................... 27
`A.
`The Government’s harm is irreparable. ................................................. 27
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ harm is trivial to non-existent. .............................................. 28
`C.
`The public interest favors a stay. ............................................................ 29
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 30
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Gardner,
`387 U.S. 136 (1967) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Action Alliance of Senior Citizens v. Heckler,
`789 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................ 20
`
`Air Courier Conference v. Am. Postal Workers Union,
`498 U.S. 517 (1991) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes,
`302 U.S. 464 (1938) .......................................................................................... 16, 24
`
`Allen v. Wright,
`468 U.S. 737 (1984) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.,
`449 U.S. 33 (1980) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Animal Legal Def. Fund v. USDA,
`632 F. App’x 905 (9th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 18
`
`Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp,
`397 U.S. 150 (1970) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist.,
`475 U.S. 534 (1986) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Burford v. Sun Oil Co.,
`319 U.S. 315 (1943) ................................................................................................ 30
`
`Burns v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,
`41 F.3d 1555 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................ 23
`
`Canadian Lumber Trade All. v. United States,
`517 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ 10, 25
`
`Cheney v. United States Dist. Court,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,
`547 U.S. 332 (2006) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Davis v. Mineta,
`302 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 29
`
`Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.,
`525 U.S. 255 (1999) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Diamond v. Charles,
`476 U.S. 54 (1986) ....................................................................................... 15-16, 28
`
`Ecosystem Inv., Partners v. Crosby Dredging, L.L.C.,
`729 F.App’x 287 (5th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Elrod v. Burns,
`427 U.S. 347 (1976) ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Ex parte Young,
`209 U.S. 123 (1908) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC,
`666 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2012)................................................................................ 18
`
`Flast v. Cohen,
`392 U.S. 83 (1968) ............................................................................................. 15-16
`
`FTC v. Dean Foods Co.,
`384 U.S. 597 (1966) ................................................................................................ 11
`
`FTC v. Standard Oil Co.,
`449 U.S. 232 (1980) ................................................................................................ 23
`
`Gladstone, Realtors v. Bellwood,
`441 U.S. 91 (1979) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Graddick v. Newman,
`453 U.S. 928 (1981) ................................................................................................ 27
`
`Hardin v. Ky. Utils. Co.,
`390 U.S. 1 (1968) .................................................................................................... 16
`
`Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
`455 U.S. 363 (1982) ................................................................................. 8, 18-20, 29
`
`Heckler v. Lopez,
`464 U.S. 879 (1983) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Hernandez v. Sessions,
`872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017).................................................................................. 28
`
`Hollingsworth v. Perry,
`558 U.S. 183 (2010) ............................................................................................ 8, 25
`
`In re Border Infrastructure Envtl. Litig.,
`915 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2019)................................................................................ 15
`
`Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee,
` 456 U.S. 694 (1982) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
`511 U.S. 375 (1994) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Lane v. Pena,
`518 U.S. 187 (1996) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Lewis v. Casey,
`518 U.S. 343 (1996) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,
`410 U.S. 614 (1973) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) .......................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
`497 U.S. 871 (1990) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`McConnell v. FEC,
`540 U.S. 93 (2003) ............................................................................................. 15-16
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms,
`561 U.S. 139 (2010) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Mount Evans Co. v. Madigan,
`14 F.3d 1444 (10th Cir. 1994).......................................................................... 10, 25
`
`Mountain States Legal Found. v. Glickman,
`92 F.3d 1228 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 19
`
`Muskrat v. United States,
`219 U.S. 346 (1911) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Nader v. Saxbe,
`497 F.2d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1974) ................................................................................ 15
`
`Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`551 U.S. 644 (2007) ........................................................................................... 26-27
`
`Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharm.
`Co., 290 F.3d 578 (3d Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Pennsylvania v. New Jersey,
`426 U.S. 660 (1976) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
`797 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 18
`
`Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States,
`307 U.S. 125 (1939) .......................................................................................... 21, 23
`
`Second City Music, Inc. v. City of Chicago,
`333 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2003).................................................................................. 29
`
`Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co.,
`467 U.S. 947 (1984) ........................................................................................... 13-14
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Sierra Club v. Morton,
`405 U.S. 727 (1972) .......................................................................................... 14, 18
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t.,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) ....................................................................................... 10-11, 12
`
`Texas v. United States,
`523 U.S. 296 (1998) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`United States v. Lee,
`106 U.S. 196 (1882) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church &
`State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) ........................................................................ 13-14
`
`Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens,
`529 U.S. 765 (2000) ..................................................................................... 15-16, 19
`
`Wadley S. R. Co. v. Georgia,
`235 U.S. 651 (1915) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`Washington v. Reno,
`35 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1994).................................................................................. 29
`
`Will v. United States,
`389 U.S. 90 (1967) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Yakus v. United States,
`321 U.S. 414 (1944) ................................................................................................ 30
`
`Youngberg v. Romeo,
`457 U.S. 307 (1982) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`STATUTES
`
`U.S. CONST. art. III ........................................................... 8, 12-13, 15-16, 19, 21, 24, 28
`
`U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2 ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Administrative Procedure Act,
`5 U.S.C. §§551-706 ............................................................................... 9, 21-22, 24
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1) ........................................................................................................ 21
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) .................................................................................................. 21, 22
`
`5 U.S.C. § 702 ................................................................................................................. 21
`
`5 U.S.C. § 702(2) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`5 U.S.C. § 703 ................................................................................................................. 21
`
`5 U.S.C. § 704 ............................................................................................................ 22-23
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) ....................................................................................................... 22
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) ....................................................................................................... 22
`
`10 U.S.C. § 284 .............................................................................................7-8. 16-17, 26
`
`10 U.S.C. § 284(a) ............................................................................................................ 7
`
`10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7) .................................................................................................. 7, 17
`
`10 U.S.C. § 2808 ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`All Writs Act,
`28 U.S.C. §1651(a) ..................................................................................... 8, 11-12
`
`National Environmental Policy Act,
`42 U.S.C. §§ 42 U.S.C. § 4331-4347 ..................................................................... 7
`
`National Emergencies Act,
`50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651 ......................................................................................... 7
`
`PUB. L. NO. 94-574, § 1, 90 Stat. 2721 (1976) ............................................................... 21
`
`Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
`PUB. L. NO. 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546 to 3009-724 ............... 14
`
`Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 102(c)(1),
`PUB. L. NO. 104-208, Div. C, § 102(c)(1), 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-555 ................. 14
`
`Real ID Act of 2005,
`PUB. L. NO. 109-13, Tit. I, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302-11 .................................. 14
`
`Real ID Act of 2005, § 102,
`PUB. L. NO. 109-13, Tit. I, Div. B, § 102, 119 Stat. 231, 306 ............................ 14
`
`DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019, § 8005,
`PUB. L. NO. 115-245, div. A, § 8005,
`132 Stat. 2981, 2999 (Sept. 28, 2018) ..................................... 7, 13, 20, 23, 25-26
`
`Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019,
`PUB. L. NO. 116-6, 132 Stat. 2981 ................................................................. 26-27
`
`RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the
`Southern Border of the United States, 84 Fed. Reg. 4949 (Feb. 15, 2019) ....... 7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947) ................. 23
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`No. 19A60
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`___________________________________________
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET. AL.,
`Applicants,
`
`v.
`
`SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`___________________________________________
`
`On Application for a Stay Pending Appeal to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Pending Further Proceedings in this
`Court and Request for an Immediate Administrative Stay
`
`___________________________________________
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF
`
`Movant U.S. Rep. Andy Barr (KY-6) respectfully requests leave to file the
`
`accompanying brief as amicus curiae in support of the application to stay the
`
`injunctive relief entered by the District Court in this matter.* The federal applicants
`
`and the private respondents consented to this motion for leave to file.
`
`IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF MOVANT
`
`Rep. Barr has represented Kentucky’s 6th congressional district since 2013. A
`
`lawyer by training, Rep. Barr also taught constitutional law at the University of
`
`Kentucky and Morehead State University when his practice was based in Kentucky.
`
`
`*
`Consistent with FED. R. APP. P. 29(a)(4)(E) and this Court’s Rule 37.6, counsel
`for movant and amicus curiae authored these motions and brief in whole, and no
`counsel for a party authored the motions and brief in whole or in part, nor did any
`person or entity, other than the movant/amicus and its counsel, make a monetary
`contribution to preparation or submission of the motions and brief.
`
` 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Rep. Barr supports the President’s attention to the humanitarian and public-safety
`
`emergency on the southern border as both a citizen and as a Member of Congress. In
`
`his legislative capacity, Rep. Barr has a significant interest in protecting the
`
`statutory scheme that Congress enacted to delegate power in emergencies to the
`
`President, not to courts.
`
`REASONS TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE
`
`By analogy to this Court’s Rule 37.2(b), movant respectfully seeks leave to file
`
`the accompanying amici curiae brief in support of the stay applicants. Because this
`
`motion is filed before the respondents’ deadline to file an opposition, this filing should
`
`not disturb the accelerated briefing schedule ordered in this matter.
`
`Movant respectfully submits that its proffered amicus brief brings several
`
`relevant matters to the Court’s attention, beyond the issues in the application:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`First, the amicus brief discusses the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which
`
`aids this Court’s jurisdiction to issue a stay now to preserve judicial review
`
`later. See Amicus Br. at 11-12.
`
`Second, on the issue of standing, the Amicus brief demonstrates that plaintiffs
`
`fail to meet the requirement for a legally protected interest with respect to an
`
`injury in fact. See Amicus Br. at 12-16.
`
`Third, on the issue of standing, the Amicus brief rebuts a potential claim to
`
`standing under Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), which
`
`respondents might raise in their opposition. See Amicus Br. at 18-20.
`
` 2
`
`

`

`•
`
`•
`
`Fourth, the amicus brief addresses the lack of a ripe claim to challenge intra-
`
`agency transfers of funds, as distinct from final agency action. See Amicus Br.
`
`at 20-21.
`
`Fifth, the amicus brief addresses the absence of either a cause of action in
`
`equity or a waiver of sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure
`
`Act. See Amicus Br. at 21-25.
`
`These issues are all relevant to deciding the stay application, and movant Rep. Andy
`
`Barr respectfully submits that filing the brief will aid the Court.
`
`Dated: July 18, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Christopher J. Hajec
`Immigration Reform Law Institute
`25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 335
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 232-5590
`chajec@irli.org
`
`/s/ Lawrence J. Joseph
`_____________________________________
`Lawrence J. Joseph
`Counsel of Record
`1250 Connecticut Av NW Suite 700-1A
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 355-9452
`Facsimile: (202) 318-2254
`lj@larryjoseph.com
`
`Counsel for Movant U.S. Rep. Andy Barr
`
` 3
`
`

`

`No. 19A60
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`___________________________________________
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET. AL.,
`Applicants,
`
`v.
`
`SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`___________________________________________
`
`On Application for a Stay Pending Appeal to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Pending Further Proceedings in this
`Court and Request for an Immediate Administrative Stay
`
`___________________________________________
`
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER RULE 33.2
`
` Movant U.S. Rep. Andy Barr (KY-6) respectfully submits that the Court’s
`
`rules require those moving or applying to a single Justice to file in 8½-by 11-inch
`
`format pursuant to Rule 22.2, as Rep. Barr does here. If Rule 21.2(b)’s requirements
`
`for motions to the Court for leave to file an amicus brief applied here, however, Rep.
`
`Barr would need to file 40 copies in booklet format, even though the Circuit Justice
`
`may not refer this matter to the full Court. Due to the expedited briefing schedule,
`
`the expense and especially the delay of booklet-format printing, and the rules’
`
`ambiguity on the appropriate procedure, Rep. Barr has elected to file pursuant to
`
`Rule 22.2. To address the possibility that the Circuit Justice may refer this matter to
`
`the full Court, however, movant files an original plus ten copies, rather than Rule
`
`22.2’s required original plus two copies.
`
`Should the Clerk’s Office, the Circuit Justice, or the Court so require, Rep. Barr
`
`4
`
`

`

`commits to re-filing expeditiously in booklet format. See S.Ct. Rule 21.2(c) (Court may
`
`direct the re-filing of documents in booklet-format). Movant respectfully requests
`
`leave to file the accompanying brief as amicus curiae — at least initially — in 8½-by
`
`11-inch format pursuant to Rules 22 and 33.2, rather than booklet format pursuant
`
`to Rule 21.2(b) and 33.1.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the motion for leave to file in 8½-by 11-inch format
`
`should be granted.
`
`Dated: July 18, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Christopher J. Hajec
`Immigration Reform Law Institute
`25 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 335
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 232-5590
`chajec@irli.org
`
`/s/ Lawrence J. Joseph
`_____________________________________
`Lawrence J. Joseph
`Counsel of Record
`1250 Connecticut Av NW Suite 700-1A
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 355-9452
`Facsimile: (202) 318-2254
`lj@larryjoseph.com
`
`Counsel for Movant U.S. Rep. Andy Barr
`
`5
`
`

`

`No. 19A60
`
`In the Supreme Court of the United States
`___________________________________________
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
`PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET. AL.,
`Applicants,
`
`v.
`
`SIERRA CLUB, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`___________________________________________
`
`On Application for a Stay Pending Appeal to the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Pending Further Proceedings in this
`Court and Request for an Immediate Administrative Stay
`
`___________________________________________
`
`AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANTS
`
`Amicus Curiae Rep. Andy Barr (KY-6) (“Rep. Barr” or “Amicus”) respectfully
`
`submits that the Circuit Justice — or the full Court, if this matter is referred to the
`
`full Court — should stay the injunctive relief entered in the District Court in this
`
`action until the federal applicants timely file and this Court duly resolves a petition
`
`for a writ of certiorari. Alternatively, because jurisdiction is lacking here, the Court
`
`could notice that defect and remand with instructions to dismiss. Representative
`
`Barr’s interests are set out in the accompanying motion for leave to file.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Executive-branch offices and officials (collectively, the “Government”) have
`
`applied to stay the District Court’s injunction against using “reprogrammed” (i.e.,
`
`transferred) funds from within the Department of Defense (“DoD”) budget for border-
`
`wall projects. The
`
`respondents —
`
`two membership groups
`
`(collectively,
`
`6
`
`

`

`“Plaintiffs”) — have sued the Government to challenge emergency efforts to build or
`
`replace border barriers on the southern border, including DoD actions under 10
`
`U.S.C. §§ 284, 2808. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the
`
`use of such funds for border-wall projects, then issued an appealable partial judgment
`
`based on one of Plaintiffs’ several theories against the border-wall projects. FED. R.
`
`CIV. P. 54(b). A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the Government’s
`
`emergency motion to stay the injunction.
`
`Although Plaintiffs’ underlying complaint raises multiple issues,1 this appeal
`
`and the stay application concern only Plaintiffs’ claims under § 284 and under § 8005
`
`of DoD’s fiscal-2019 appropriations bill, DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2019,
`
`PUB. L. NO. 115-245, div. A, § 8005, 132 Stat. 2981, 2999 (Sept. 28, 2018). Although
`
`Plaintiffs do not dispute that DoD may use funds under § 284 for “the counterdrug
`
`activities … of any other department or agency of the Federal Government,” 10 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284(a), such as “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to
`
`block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States,”
`
`id. § 284(b)(7), Plaintiffs argue that § 8005 prohibits DoD’s transfer of the relevant
`
`funds within DoD’s budget to fund border-barrier projects under § 284.
`
`1
`
`Plaintiffs’ other claims include a challenge under the National Environmental
`Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 42 U.S.C. § 4331-4347 (“NEPA”), and a challenge to the use
`of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651 (“NEA”) for the President’s
`actions at the southern border. See Presidential Proclamation on Declaring a
`National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States, 84 Fed.
`Reg. 4949 (Feb. 15, 2019). Although DoD funding under 10 U.S.C. § 2808 falls under
`the NEA, DoD actions under 10 U.S.C. § 284 do not require an emergency to transfer
`or reprogram funds.
`
`7
`
`

`

`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A stay pending the timely filing and ultimate resolution of a petition for a writ
`
`of certiorari is appropriate when there is “(1) a reasonable probability that four
`
`Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair
`
`prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and
`
`(3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.”
`
`Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010). For “close cases,” the Court “will
`
`balance the equities and weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the
`
`respondent.” Id. Where the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is implicated, the Court
`
`also considers the necessity or appropriateness of interim relief now to aid the Court’s
`
`future jurisdiction. See Edwards v. Hope Med. Group for Women, 512 U.S. 1301 (1994)
`
`(requiring “reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted,” a “significant
`
`possibility” of reversal, and a “likelihood of irreparable harm”) (Scalia, J., in
`
`chambers).
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Article III requires this Court to evaluate not only its own jurisdiction to hear
`
`the stay application, but also the jurisdiction of the courts below over Plaintiffs’
`
`claims. The All Writs Act provides this Court jurisdiction to aid its future appellate
`
`jurisdiction (Section II.A.1), but Plaintiffs lack a legally protected right under Article
`
`III and their claimed injuries would fall outside the zone of interests for the relevant
`
`statutes even if Plaintiffs satisfied Article III (Sections II.A.2-II.A.3). Appropriation
`
`statutes differ from the statute at issue in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S.
`
`363 (1982), in a way that precludes reliance on Plaintiffs’ diverted-resources injury
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`(Section II.A.4). Plaintiffs’ challenge to the transfer of funds is not ripe, moreover,
`
`since their claimed injuries flow from the final action of committing the transferred
`
`funds and building border barriers (Section II.A.5). Finally, Plaintiffs lack both a
`
`cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the APA’s waiver
`
`of sovereign immunity (Section II.A.6.a), and cannot state a claim for non-APA equity
`
`review (Section II.A.6.b).
`
`On the merits, provisions in the appropriations bill for the Department of
`
`Homeland Security (“DHS”) do not repeal by implication DoD’s separate authority for
`
`border-barrier construction (Section II.B.2), and the transfers otherwise satisfy the
`
`appropriation statutes (Section II.B.1).
`
`While the foregoing jurisdictional and merits issues suggest that the
`
`Government is likely to prevail, the other stay factors also support the Government.
`
`Injunctions in favor of plaintiffs who lack standing inflict a separation-of-powers
`
`injury on the Executive Branch that constitutes irreparable harm, and combines with
`
`the injunction’s negative impact on the Executive Branch’s ability to conduct foreign
`
`affairs and protect national security and public safety (Section III.A). By contrast,
`
`Plaintiffs’ countervailing injuries are trivial and, indeed, arguably not cognizable
`
`(Section III.B). Finally, the public interest favors a stay, both because the public
`
`interest merges with the merits (which favor the Government) and because — in
`
`public-injury cases such as this — a private plaintiff cannot obtain an injunction
`
`against the government as easily as it could against a private plaintiff in like
`
`circumstances (Section III.C).
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`THE GRANT OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS LIKELY.
`
`There is a reasonable possibility that this Court wi