First note: One commonality between this blog (ocean related legal issues) and a good chunk of my day job (land use litigation) is federalism. So, when a federalism case pops up...well, you'll have to indulge me.
Second note: It is not often that the federal government will sue a municipality for the laws they pass. But, in this case the federal government did sue two cities in California for passing statutes which barred military recruiters from engaging in ...well, recruiting. The case is USA v. City of Arcata, et al.
And, now the case: Voters in Arcata and Eureka passed ballot measures which barred the federal government from recruiting minors. Not two months later, the federal government brought suit seeking invalidity of the the ordinances citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The trial court struck down the ordinances, apparently in a facial challenge.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. First, they addressed the question of whether the federal government even had standing to challenge the ordinances. To show standing, a plaintiff must show an "injury in fact," real or threatened before the federal court will have jurisdiction. This argument is strange, because the cities admitted that they WOULD enforce the ordinances against federal employees. The Ninth Circuit found standing.
Next, the cities argued that the Declaratory Judgment Act was misused to create federal question jurisdiction. This argument failed because Congress has statutorily authorized federal court jurisdiction for cases that the federal government is a plaintiff (28 U.S.C. 1345) and when the issue arises under the Constitution (28 U.S.C. 1331).
Finding jurisdiction, the Ninth Circuit addressed the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity which is a doctrine that dates back to McCullough v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). That case held that:
the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.
The court rejected the cities' other defenses of the Tenth Amendment, the international treaty relating to children in armed conflict, and the promise of self-restraint. The Ninth Circuit rejected the defenses and permanent enjoined the enforcement of the ordinances.
Comments