杏十八新茶分享

 

United States v. California State Lands

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
  • Date Filed: 06-14-2012
  • Case #: 10-56568
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Gould for the Court; Circuit Judges Pregerson and Tallman

So long as the federal government is within its constitutional right to take land, just compensation having been paid, 鈥渘either the equal-footing doctrine nor the public trust doctrine prevents the federal government from taking a [fee simple] interest in the land unencumbered;鈥 be it from a person, or a state.

This appeal regards an eminent domain case between The California State Lands Commission (鈥淐ommission鈥) and the United States, 鈥渨herein the United States took a fee simple interest in about 32.42 acres of land鈥 (鈥淧roperty鈥) for the Navy. The United States condemned the property seeking to extinguish California鈥檚 public trust rights, which the Commission contends cannot be accomplished through eminent domain. Commission believes their trust rights become 鈥渜uiescent鈥 throughout the United States鈥 ownership, but will 鈥渞e-emerge鈥 if the United States were to transfer the Property to a private party. The district court held that condemnation extinguished California鈥檚 public trust on the parcel, and that the filled land 鈥渃an be conveyed to a private party free of any trust鈥, and the remaining tidelands are 鈥渘ow subject to a federal public trust and may not be conveyed to a private party.鈥 The Ninth Circuit noted, 鈥淭he United States鈥 power of eminent domain is supreme when exercised within its constitutional powers,鈥 and that 鈥淸t]he federal government does not need the consent of a state鈥 to take its property for public use, so long as the federal government acts within its constitutional authority and pays just compensation.鈥 The Court found the United States followed requisite procedure from the U.S.C. and was within its powers to 鈥減rovide and maintain a Navy,鈥 and 鈥渢o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers.鈥 The Court rejected the Commission鈥檚 contention that the equal-footing doctrine required the United States to show 鈥渟ome compelling reason for granting away鈥 submerged lands. The Court also rejected their assessment of the law of federal navigational servitude, finding no precedent or any good reason to limit the United States鈥 power of eminent domain. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top