140 S. Ct. 1
SCOTUS2019Background
- In July 2019 the Supreme Court granted a stay of a District Court’s June 28, 2019 permanent injunction that had barred the Government from using certain reprogrammed funds to construct a border barrier. The stay is conditioned on ongoing appellate and possible certiorari review.
- The Government sought the stay, arguing plaintiffs (Sierra Club et al.) lack a cause of action to challenge the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005 and that delay would irreparably harm the Government by causing funds to lapse.
- The District Court found likely irreparable environmental and respondent harm from construction and enjoined use of the funds and construction.
- The Supreme Court’s stay was granted by the Court (per curiam) with three Justices dissenting from the grant (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan).
- Justice Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part: he agreed a stay was warranted in some form but would limit it—allowing contract finalization and preparatory administrative acts while continuing to bar disbursement of funds and start of construction to avoid irreparable environmental harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have a cause of action to obtain judicial review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with §8005 reprogramming | Plaintiffs: they have standing and an actionable claim to challenge the Secretary’s use of §8005 funds to build the barrier | Government: plaintiffs lack a cause of action to review the Acting Secretary’s compliance with §8005; appeal and certiorari likely | Court (per curiam): at this stage the Government made a sufficient showing that plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review; stay granted pending appeal/certiorari |
| Whether a stay of the District Court injunction is warranted pending appellate and certiorari proceedings | Plaintiffs: stay would allow irreversible environmental and respondent harm from construction | Government: denial of stay would cause irreparable harm because contracts/funds could lapse and funds may return to Treasury | Court: stay granted in full; Breyer J. would have tailored stay to permit finalizing contracts but bar construction and disbursement of funds |
| Whether irreparable harm favors staying the injunction | Plaintiffs: construction causes irreparable environmental harm and cannot be made whole by later remedies | Government: inability to finalize contracts by Sept. 30 effectively moots relief and creates irreparable harm to Government | Court: majority accepted Government’s showing as sufficient for stay; Breyer would balance harms and limit stay to avoid environmental irreparable harm |
| Appropriate scope of any stay (full stay vs. partial/tailored relief) | Plaintiffs: full injunction necessary to prevent irreversible harm | Government: needs ability to finalize contracts and take preparatory steps before funds lapse | Breyer: grant stay only to allow contract finalization and administrative steps but bar fund disbursement and construction; majority granted stay in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standard and tailoring for stays pending appeal)
- Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012) (in-chambers standard requiring likelihood of irreparable harm for a stay)
- Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U.S. 1301 (1991) (stay equity-balancing—Scalia in chambers cited)
- Leiter v. United States, 271 U.S. 204 (1926) (Anti-Deficiency Act limits on government contractual obligations)
- Sutton v. United States, 256 U.S. 575 (1921) (government payment obligation principles)
- Hooe v. United States, 218 U.S. 322 (1910) (government contracting and payment limits)
- Bradley v. United States, 98 U.S. 104 (1878) (government obligations and remedies)