Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/400067109/Sierra-Club-Et-Al-v-Trump
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:48:50+00:00

Document:
Overview of Governor Granholm’s FY 2010-11 Budget, Michigan.
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
5 along the U.S.-Mexico border.
11 location and timing of border wall construction.
20 spending on the border wall.
2 to secure the appropriations that Congress denied him for the border wall.
5 legislation. The President’s actions violate both those statutes and the Constitution.
8 and injunctive relief and other remedies as set forth below.
10 8. This case arises under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019, Pub. Law No.
11 116-6; Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution; Article I, section 7 of the U.S.
19 the claims occurred in this district.
24 funding for constructions projects at military bases in this District.
2 the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these objectives.
19 uses, and have worked to promote conservation of wildlife and habitat along the border.
3 Texas; Rio Grande City, Texas; Escobares, Texas; La Grulla, Texas; and Salineño, Texas.
11 protect. The requested relief will redress these injuries.
26 congressional appropriations, and the impacts of those activities.
7 that impact border communities.
19 that generate significant revenue.
24 aesthetically, and religiously. The requested relief would redress these injuries.
12 furtherance of its mission to improve the quality of life in border communities.
19 Trump’s declaration of national emergency.
27 construction of the border wall under President Trump’s declaration of national emergency.
6 the pace the President preferred.
15 more than $8 billion for border wall construction.
17 Appropriations for Wall Construction.
24 2017, Congress agreed on a bipartisan bill to fund the government through September 30, 2017.
27 the President signed the bill on May 5, 2017.
7 throughout the remainder of 2018.
21 years”—unless Congress gave him the money he was demanding for the border wall.
27 negotiations over border security.
2 Trump threatened to declare a national emergency and build a wall without congressional approval.
21 previously been rejected by the President.
5 chance that we’ll have to do” an emergency proclamation.
13 Mexico border and included numerous restrictions on the timing and location of construction.
15 and would find “other methods” to finance a wall without explicit approval form Congress.
17 Enacting the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019.
4 wall.” 165 Cong. Rec. S1362 (daily ed. Feb 14, 2019).
12 construction in cities situated along the border.
17 Ranch tract of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.” Pub. Law No. 116-6 § 231.
21 comment on any plans for construction. Pub. Law No. 116-6 § 232.
23 Homeland Security to Construct his Wall in the Absence of Congressional Authorization.
6 decided to declare an emergency because he was dissatisfied with the pace of Congress’s spending.
13 areas where wall construction is prohibited, and emphasized the importance of a contiguous wall.
23 September 2020—much faster than congressionally authorized funding would allow.
15 61. According to a “fact sheet” issued by the White House, entitled “President Donald J.
20 specific purposes pursuant to its authority under the Constitution.
22 border wall, many times the $1.375 billion appropriated by Congress.
2 Shelby, Appropriations Committee Chairman.
4 Construction of President Trump’s Wall Will Have Devastating Effects on the Environment.
10 resources have been mobilized, or waivers have been issued.
16 Yuma Sector; New Mexico’s El Paso Sector; and, Texas’s Laredo and Rio Grande Valley Sectors.
25 across the border through the Jacumba Wilderness to California’s Anza-Borrego State Park.
8 cultural, historic, and recreational sites.
19 towards their missions on behalf of their members.
21 environment and local communities that complies with NEPA.
4 authority to expend public funds that have not been thus appropriated.
11 the individual favor of Government agents or the individual pleas of litigants.” Office of Pers. Mgmt.
12 v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 428 (1990).
16 law can do that.
21 authorization. Congress also may limit the purposes for which appropriated funds may be used.
27 and expressly so provide.
5 amount of funding after careful consideration.
8 Branch, as the Framers intended.
15 Appropriations Clause.” United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1175 (9th Cir. 2016).
20 congressional control over funds in the Treasury.” Office of Pers. Mgmt., 496 U.S. at 425.
24 Congresses to follow.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
26 Return it to Congress with Objections.
8 that he either approve all the parts of a Bill, or reject it in toto.” Id. at 440 (quotation marks omitted).
11 Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583, 596 (1938).
13 Construction Authority Under 10 U.S.C. § 2808.
18 forces.” 10 U.S.C. § 2808.
23 activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department . . . .” 10 U.S.C. § 2801(a).
26 abroad and for protection of weapons of mass destruction.
1 of Border Fencing Under 10 U.S.C. § 284.
6 rather than across an entire international border. 10 U.S.C. § 284(b)(7).
17 use of forfeited funds for specifically delineated law enforcement purposes. See 31 U.S.C. § 9705.
21 expenditures relating to the seizure and forfeiture program. 31 U.S.C § 9705(a).
23 construction of a border wall.
Environmental Impact of Their Actions.
3 Nation . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
7 Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348 (1989); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
10 4342, 4344; 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500–1508 (1978).
16 impacts are insignificant and issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”). Id. § 1508.13.
22 and the implementation of that decision.” Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. at 349.
2 commitment of resources.” Connor v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1446 (9th Cir. 1998).
5 of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.23.
10 as federal and federally assisted activities.” Id. §§ 1508.18(a) & (b)(4).
14 implementation over a long timeframe; and/or implementation across a large geographic area.
19 environmentally sensitive areas” as an action “normally requiring” the preparation of at least an EA.
8 “public scrutiny [is] essential to implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).
14 actions have cumulatively significant impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.25.
28 10 U.S.C. §§ 284, 2808 and 31 U.S.C § 9705, and Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
scope of their constitutional and/or statutory authority.
numerous areas specifically described in the law.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 602 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
that are silent on wall construction.
scheduling bounds set by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019.
1 construction of the [earlier broad] statute, even though it ha[s] not been expressly amended.” Id.
2 (quotations and citations omitted; brackets in original).
6 Congress chose to fund.
8 10 U.S.C. § 2808 because it does not identify an emergency requiring use of the armed forces.
11 project supporting the armed forces.
13 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019.
16 requirement that construction under that statute must be limited to drug smuggling corridors.
21 magnitude . . . .” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. at 133.
2 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019.
4 the restrictions Congress imposed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019.
7 124. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.
9 Appropriations made by Law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.
15 to build a wall across the border.
23 609 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
28 Constitution’s separation of powers.
130. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.
appropriation made by law. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.
$1.375 billion for border wall construction.
by statutes that provide authority for emergency proclamations.
Congress has passed and the President has signed.
24 137. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.
10 than by law, they violate the Constitution.
13 142. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.
22 explain its decision.” Alaska Ctr. for Env’t v. U.S. Forest Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 859 (9th Cir. 1999).
27 may be interested or affected”).
7 the action will have, including both cumulative effects and the effects of connected actions.
10 complete NEPA at the earliest possible time in the planning process.
14 of border wall construction violates NEPA and its implementing regulations.
17 149. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.
2 reimbursed to the Department of Defense under 10 U.S.C. § 277.
7 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2019.
4 (F) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

References: § 231
 § 232
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2808
 § 2808
 § 2801
 § 284
 § 284
 § 9705
 § 9705
 § 4321
 § 4332
 § 1508
 v. 
 § 1508
 § 1500
 § 1508
 § 9705
 v. 
 § 2808
 § 9
 § 9
 v. 
 § 277