construction funds authorized by congress and appropriated to deity for order barrier construction projects that are nowhere near el paso that injunction was improper and should be both because the plaintiffs here lack standing to bring this case and because the district court misunderstood the governing statutes first your honor both plaintiffs paso county and the  based there standing not on anything having to do with any further construction project under section two thousand eight hundred and eight military construction statute but instead on a disagreement with the president's message the construction project and made no effort to base any asserted injury on the effects of any construction under section twenty eight dollars that insufficient in the bases the asserted bases for standing cannot withstand scrutiny this corps in cases such as kyle o c a acorn and scott undertook a very careful scrutiny of the plaintiff's asserted injuries and made sure that speculative and conclusory assertions would off formed a basis for standing to challenge government tapped it should do so here is well el paso a certain injury st in the district court concluded that i don't have to county itself was the object of the president's proclamation declaring a national emergency that misreads the president's proclamation nowhere in that proclamation is there any reference to a paso county it does not single out the community in any way the idea  the proclamation that cannot be the basis for standing here as a county also asserts that as an indirect result of what it claims will be the actions of rd parties tourists and businesses that its tax revenues will indirectly be reduced as a consequence of the federal government's policy of the border that has been determined in multiple cases by many circuits to be insufficient to support a claim of injury by a state your local government in a suit against the federal in cases such as iowa the th circuit pennsylvania in the d c circuit wyoming th circuit every who are of appeals to address this question has found that those d kinds of general assertions of indirect reductions in tax revenues cannot suffice to support standing by a low contrast that with the supreme court's decision in by a policy by statute in oklahoma reducing purchases of wyoming coal did support standing in original action in that case there's no such claim here and el paso county any twenty into a construction project and indeed says nothing about any construction at all instead it is based entirely on asserted injuries that the declarant claims result from the  policies of the federal government at the border generally immigration and law enforcement policies fences so the be in h r claimed that it has expended additional funds that it otherwise would not have to spend as a consequence of what it says are increased abuses by law enforcement or immigration officers but those are not really traceable to were dressed by anything having to do border wall construction under section twenty eight await authorization for military construction by to you for that reason both claim to slack standing and the district court should have dismissed the case on that basis and certainly should not have entered the injunction that it did prohibiting on a nationwide basis the construction by the department of defense using its independent statutory authority and funds declaration that was submitted by the plaintiffs here are insufficient because they do not specifically address any of the two thousand eight hundred and eight construction projects or identified injury traceable to any particular twenty eight dollars construction nineteen a provision that appropriated funds to be part of homeland security and appropriated a specific amount of thought for the purpose of building border barriers in the rio grande valley you concluded that that improved vision appropriating funds for that purpose to d h katz precludes the department of defense from relied on its own statutory authorities to undertake military construction misunderstanding of the language of the ca and it was not in it does not form a basis for the permanent injunction that they just were here entered the court should should not have  plaintiffs made make an alternative argument attacking the declaration of a national emergency but the district court rightly did not lock on any a authority to oversee the president separation the national can see to take action to reverse it which the congress has twice attempted to do but has not managed to overweight but i want to emphasize that the district were correct we did not and that the military construction projects that the department of defense has undertaken here were outside the scope of the court my name is definite dollar on behalf of plaintiffs el paso county and the border network for human rights and my presentation today i'd like to make the following three points st plaintiffs have article three standings based on economic in organizational injuries  nd the government's attempt to expand the zone of interest test beyond its federal limits is waived and we satisfy that test in any event and rd the government's border wall expenditures in this case by late the consolidated appropriations act because when congress considers and rejects a presidential request the executive branch cannot disregard this decision i'll start with why paso county can sue and my house on the other side did not mention our principal argument for base was made it affected the surrounding area that those people would have a right to say you have any case law on that so we have two cases that i point your honor to both from the th circuit one is the city of oakland case which involved a situation where the federal government closed a medical marijuana dispensary in the city of oakland and the court found that the city of oakland had standing to challenge that's at closure because of the tax revenues that the city lost because of that closure in the same logic applies here because el paso county would have generated tax revenues from the four plus project and the cancellation of that project means at all cost of lost those were responding tax revenues the other is the city of sausalito case also from the th circuit and in that case the court held that the city of sausalito had standing to challenge the federal government's construction at a nearby military base that was not in the city but near the city because it would lead to economic harm from that nearby construction and the same logic again twice here with respect to the construction that is being carried out this fifteen miles from the downtown paso area which also the governments council did not mention is that that goes to the broader cross appeal the spectrum to eighty four dollars construction but it's another way in which a paso county is suffering economic harm but it but i'd like to point to the fort bliss injury in particular because it's difficult to imagine sue it's difficult to see what's we're going to would be able to challenge an unlawful executive expenditure and that would mean that any president could spend any amount of money on any project that he or she wanted even if congress would consider had considered and rejected precisely that project record that shows his italy while entities would have been hired from el paso and what taxes might have been due because i'm trying to understand what taxes a state can charge the federal government etc because i know there are tax the county budgetary and x revenue commission and what mr samuel says is that the last four plus project will harm the county budget it does and we don't we think that's sufficient at the summary judgment stage for two reasons the st i that it's consistent with basic laws of economics and this court has relied on basic laws of economics i mean standing in any number of any number of cases and i don't think that there's any requirement i think i'm not aware of any requirement that pla so kind of the miracle or evidence showing how basic laws of economics would work in any particular case and the way that it would have worked here is the following do you or do you would have paid twenty million dollars to contractors to do the for police project those contractors what it obviously a paso would have packed the contractors sales of their services to the government but more importantly it could have also tat the contractors purchases of supplies as well as labor that were necessary for the project and that's just the tip of the iceberg because it even took up on tractors like detains you mentioned came from outside of el paso they would have lived and work in the community and that meant that would mean that they would stay in hotels eat in restaurants and make any other number benefit of this i'm just wondering about that at a preliminary i mean a permanent injunction stage when you have to have full proof and not just allegations i think the allegations might be enough at the beginning how is this proof it's not just allegations construction project the government is relying on generalized grievance cases cases where states were challenging federal government action that basically affected all states and citizens equally this is very different because we're talking about the loss of a specific construction project where the specific amount of money in a specific county and basic laws of economics lead to the conclusion that the loss of that construction project would lead to economic harm or el paso county and we don't need to show that it's a huge amount we just need to show that it's some the same token that they would hire people that come from el paso or travel hassle would not because it's a big city in this general area is there no does that not matter it doesn't matter your honor for the following reason in texas versus united states this court made very clear that article three standing is not an accounting exercise so you don't look to whether there are some offsetting benefits or parts that at the altar of it it's interesting what matters is whether the again we don't need to show exactly how much in tax revenues be don't need to show it would be a huge hit to their county tax revenue base we just need to show it's concrete in particular i don't want back to the standing issue let's assume the congress decisions to close bases you look at any of those cases your honor there are st of all i'm not aware of any cases directly resolving that issue i do know that but dalton v specter case which is discussed in the briefing on a different issue that did involve the closure of military bases and there was no question in that case about our freestanding there were other questions about rather whether presidential action was reviewable but it was not an article three standing question because i think it's it's quite clear that we know that municipalities can sue in certain cases from they can show direct economic injury and i mean i suppose you can show that sort of direct economic injury when it loses an important part of its economy which yours that party has standing interest to give a concrete example why else would members of congress routinely lobby for military bases or military construction projects in their communities it's because those military construction projects at significant benefits for those communities and for those communities governments and that's exactly the basic law of economics that we are relying on here and would be one thing if the government had come forth with its own evidence countering our declaration showing that for some reason basic laws of economics would not work as they normally would in this particular situation i grant you that in that case we might have had to accord with some more gate but the government never came forward with that sort of evidence and on gap in nat situation affected immigrant community because the organization and to divert resources for educating its members and counseling its members about the fact that new texas voting law in the same logic applies here in h r is an immigrant rights organization and it has two principal missions st is counseling and supporting the local immigrant community in west texas and southern new mexico and nd is proactively advocating for immigration policy reform year after the proclamation was issued by the president and the wall construction in southern mexico where many be in h r members lives was announce they beat the organization diverted resources towards counseling its members of the backs of those new policies i don't navigate those effects on their daily lives well which we also cite so we think that o c a peter houston essentially resolves the standing issue perspective in h r i outs on the other side noted that the n h l or is not affected by any of the construction or its declaration directly affected and directly harmed by the construction that is happening in southern new mexico this is construction that is happening just fifteen miles from town and i'll ask so where many of these individuals live and as a result of that construction bein trailer has poured resources into helping the helping its members navigate the logistical and practical effects of back instruction and as the declaration explained those are resources that would have otherwise been spent on advocating for proactive and again when that organization has two missions and it has to divert all of its resources effectively to only one of those missions that suffices for organizational standing if i may dress the government's own of interest argument which which i have i suspect the in this case and it just reports held on page two hundred and twelve of the record that the government had waived its based on events or this portrait and even on page twenty of the government's own response the government admits that it didn't make its current known of interest argument in the district court so that argument is waved and this court should follow its general practice of not reaching way arguments but even even if it weren't made even setting reverse side we stat club cases in the th circuit where the th circuit is now ruled in favor of those plaintiffs judge smith was one of the dissenting judges in those cases and he said that these budgetary statutory provisions like the ones that are  protect budgetary and economic interests even though and he didn't think that they protected environmental here we are asserting the very same budgetary economic interests that smith was referring to so we would satisfy his own interest following two ways first a longstanding budgetary principle that when congress appropriates a specific sum of money for specific projects executive branch can't rely on more general appropriations to spend more money on that same project increases in funding funding for projects that the president proposed and congress has rejected and i'll call that the proposed projects are and the government is simply incorrect that we're simply rely on legislative history for specific projects executive branches precluded from relying on more general appropriations to spend more money on that same project that principle is designed to protect congress's power of the purse for anything executive branch like in this case from creatively circumventing considered the funds made available in this or any other appropriations act may be used to increase funding for a project as proposed in the president's budget request for fiscal year until such proposed changes subsequently enacted in the procreation back here expenditures violate both the consolidated relations act proposed projects far and specific versus general and the president proposed asked for six billion dollars for the border wall project instead of accepting the president's request congress appropriated one billion three hundred and seventy five million dollars for the border wall project given that decision executive branch is precluded from what it's doing now which is relying on more general statutory provisions for military construction and counter drug support to spend more money then vishal six billion dollars on the same board while project that congress consider and rejected in the cia the government's main counterarguments all of this has been that section thirty nine proposed projects bar and the specific versus general principle only apply the projects that are carried out by a single agency they don't apply the projects that are carried out by multiple agencies so what the government both the presidential budget request and ordered all construction itself and that should be forbidden even under the government's own understanding of the work project in section seven hundred and thirty nine dollars for those projects are we said that we said that argument in government's argument would be legally flawed because neither the specific versus general and nor the proposed projects are apply only to projects involving a single agent they also by the projects involving multiple agencies after all congress knows that the appropriations process plays out across the entire executive branch and congress knows that multiple agencies often have similar missions similar statutory authorities think about not only in p h s in this case but also agencies like the department of energy and environmental protection a see these are agencies with similar missions it's similar already so when congress specifically appropriate amount for a specific project that's all that congress and that project to receive no matter the agency no matter  proclamation as a precondition so if the proclamation is invalid in those expenditures are invalid as well and in our view a valid national emergency declaration must address the unforseen circumstance that requiring easy action that definition for ludes long standing problems and the act is tree shows that the n e a was designed to contract not expand presidential emergency powers before the n e a presidents had unfettered discretion to declare emergencies whenever they wanted and through the n e a congress sought to change that status by opposing some limits on presidential emergency authority now applying those principles here it's clear that this emergency declaration that and yet congress considered the very same issue that this proclamation addresses the proclamation addresses as by its terms it says it's addressing the problem of them lawful immigration across the southern border but congress has considered that problem and considered it directly in the consolidated appropriations act we know that for three reasons st to consolidate appropriations act it's well known from the legislative record that that was the principal problem that led to the government shut immigration across the southern border and congress rejected the president's proposed solution there could have been no intervening circumstances between congress's consideration of the relevant problem and the president's emergency declaration because the president signed the consolidated appropriations act on the very same day that he issued a national emergency declaration so there couldn't have been any unforseen or intervening sir and  so whatever the limits of a president's authority under the national emergencies act this declaration has to exceed those limits you just me know that congress is viewing the statute as a safety valve for times of crisis not as a political tool for the both of which hold that barely legal questions of statutory interpretation do not present political questions even if they involve significant political implications and here we're simply asking the  but here we're simply arguing based on that x is true that there has to be some judicial facts but when the president and invoke and yet and i think it's helpful in this case to understand involving the evolving nature of the government's interpretation of the n e a in this case in the district court the government's interpretation of the statute was that the president declared an emergency whenever he wanted there were no limits on that authority and in response we argued that that would that would pose a serious question a non delegation docs and it is a black intelligible in that statute but here the government as i read the government's briefs on page twenty seven of its response the government now seems to be arguing that hour and that would raise a nine delegation question and required or to read the statute narrowly or the constitutional or the government is arguing that emergency actually needs to be read in court as with ordinary meaning in which  being carried out is an activity under the jurisdiction of the secretary of the military but the southern border is an international boundary line it's an act and that's particularly true because activity has to be rats in accordance with the preceeding terms in the list and a garden center all of which are discrete military sites for traditional military activities and the border wall in the southern border are nothing like those other discrete military and so we know that congress did not intend this provision for this particular instruction and even if there were some ambiguity about that that ambiguity would in our favor if you're when congress assigns major questions of economic political significance to administrative agencies it does so clearly it speaks clearly in the statutory past and here this is clearly a decision of major economic and political significance spending three billion six hundred million dollars on the wall and at the very least section thank you rather just a few notes on rebuttal st of all i'd like to address the argument that one point is i made about the twenty million dollar appropriated for the defense access ro project around four lists notably nothing in the record nothing in the declarations that the plaintiffs submitted addresses that project worthless the effect of those th would be related to that project and the reason for that is because their declarations all predated the decision by the department of defense concerning what projects would be cancelled in order to provide decisions tourist businesses cetera there is nothing in there even about this twenty million dollars defense access roads project i'd like to also make another point though about the defense access route project which was  still has not been for that particular defense access road project at fort bliss it was the subject of the general appropriation for military construction and congress directed to dio detroit down to five projects it would undertake duty identify the for speculative you cannot support the plaintiff standing but even if it could support plaintiff's stand you would only support standing for a much narrower injunction an injunction concerning that twenty million dollars and the district court here won't much further it entered a nationwide injunction against all section two need not share construction projects or guest eggs or no nationwide injunction given where we are and in that world will change a thing we cited for example to the t h s against new york state decision by the supreme court in the concurring opinion there that lays out all the very serious consequences nationwide what the indian there called universal injunctions we think that's a good starting point for recognizing that the supreme court is aware of these concerns but even apart from the those more general concerns voters about how to deal with that particular policy what's lacking in this case is any record evidence at all about how any two hundred and eighty it construction project or even indeed any construction project at all even under section two  not claiming any representatives stand their representations to not claiming standing on the basis of their members injuries only on the basis of the organization's interests and they haven't identified why any increase noise in traffic which again be related in any way to the mission of being in h r that's what's lacking here in addition to the failure to provide specific allegations pacific evidence i should say of the injury to plaintiffs and  not addressed happy to address the zone of interest to the court has any questions i will point out only that the district were erroneous he concluded that the plaintiffs here didn't have to satisfy any zone of interest for any claim this also say that the idea that an equitable claim can be wrong or then the statutory claim under the it p a a is that obsolete the supreme court's holding in her hand is against mesa side conflict here the statutes that are here demonstrating as many other statutory schemes do nearly that congress as it often has authorized overlapping authority f multiple agencies to undertake efforts in a similar field that for example construction for example counter drug activities with respect to section two hundred and eighty four dollars process there is no to the district court here it deliberately disregarded that term of art meaning and decided that it could use instead a dictionary definition of projects but that is not appropriate