This suit, filed on September 20, 2017, challenged President Trump's authorization of the construction of a border wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. The plaintiffs sued the federal government for failing to comply with existing laws and taking actions beyond the scope of its authority. President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 13767 on Jan. 25, 2017; it directed DHS to "allocate all sources of Federal funds for the planning, designing and construction of a physical wall along the southern border." The EO cites as its authority the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). According to the complaint, IIRIRA "allows the Secretary of DHS to waive any law he or she deems necessary to expeditiously construct reinforced fencing authorized under that section." The complaint asserted that DHS twice attempted to exercise this waiver on Aug. 2 and Sept. 12, 2017 with respect to portions of the California border pursuant to the EO. According to the complaint, DHS seeks to enforce the EO through the "construction of a Border Wall, which includes but is not limited to the construction of prototype walls and fences, the construction of barriers and roads that are not in areas of high illegal entry, the construction of barriers that are not in areas where the fencing would be most practical and effective, and the replacement of existing walls and fencing along the United States-Mexico border."

In so doing, the complaint argued that DHS violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The complaint further argued that the IIRIRA waiver provision is "limited to the installation of 'additional barriers and roads...in areas of high illegal entry,'" and does not authorize replacement of existing barriers and roads, construction of temporary prototype walls, or the construction of barriers and roads in areas that are not "of high illegal entry into the United States." Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that the IIRIRA waiver provision does not apply to DHS' proposed activities pursuant to the EO, that the two California waivers do not comply with the IIRIRA waiver provision, and that both the California waivers and the IIRIRA provision itself violate Fifth Amendment due process, the separation of powers doctrine, and the Tenth Amendment.

One plaintiff is the People of California, represented by the Attorney General. The suit sought to protect in particular California's natural resources, sovereign interests in enacting and enforcing state laws, and economic interests in trade and tourism with Mexico as well as property near the border. The other plaintiff is the California Coastal Commission, which is a state agency that implements the Coastal Zone Management Act in California.

The case was assigned to Judge Thomas J. Whelan, then reassigned to Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on Oct. 5. The case was consolidated with two other cases on Oct. 24. The lead case, which will contain all future updates, is here. The court in the lead case granted summary judgment for the defendant on Feb. 27, 2018, which has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The case is ongoing.

Virginia Weeks - 09/23/2017
Virginia Weeks - 04/12/2018


compress summary