USA v. State of California et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Grant, Eric)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

JEFFREY H. WOOD
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ERIC GRANT (CA Bar No. 151064)
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JUSTIN HEMINGER (DC Bar. No. 974809)
STACY STOLLER (DC Bar No. 475035)
PETER McVEIGH (VA Bar No. 73211)
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 2630
Washington, D.C. 20530

12

McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
DAVID T. SHELLEDY
Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, California 95814
[phone]
[e-mail]

13

Counsel for Plaintiff United States of America

9
10
11

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA;
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
of the State of California, in his official
capacity; and CALIFORNIA STATE
LANDS COMMISSION, an agency of
the State of California,
Defendants.

26
27
28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

) No. __________
)
)
) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1

Plaintiff United States of America alleges as follows:

2

INTRODUCTION

3

1.

Recently enacted legislation known as 2017 California Senate Bill 50 (“SB 50”)

4

discriminates against the United States and delays and otherwise obstructs conveyances of real

5

property owned by the United States, including by creating a potential cloud on marketable title.

6

The State of California enacted and is attempting to implement this law even though the

7

Constitution grants the federal government exclusive “Power to dispose of . . . Property belonging

8

to the United States,” and even though California was admitted to the Union on the express

9

condition that it “shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title of the United States to, and right

10

to dispose of, [its lands] shall be impaired or questioned.” That discrimination and obstruction is

11

contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and is therefore invalid. The United

12

States brings this action against the State of California, its governor, and its State Lands

13

Commission (collectively, “Defendants”) for a judgment so declaring and for an injunction against

14

any implementation of SB 50.

15

JURISDICTION

16

2.

This is a civil action brought by the United States under the Constitution of the

17

United States (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 and Article VI, Clause 2), as well as under the

18

numerous federal statutes set forth in Paragraph 21 below.

19

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1345 (United States as plaintiff).

20

VENUE

21

3.

The Court has subject matter

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because (1) all

22

Defendants reside here, and (2) a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is

23

situated in the City of Sacramento and elsewhere in this District. In addition, more than 16 million

24

acres of federal land is located in the District.

25

4.

This action is properly commenced in the Sacramento Division because it arises in

26

(among other places) Sacramento County.

27

///

28

///
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 1

1
2

PARTIES

5.

Plaintiff is the United States of America, suing on its own behalf and on behalf of

3

its executive departments and other subdivisions (hereinafter, “agencies” or “federal agencies”),

4

including but not limited to those listed in Paragraphs 6 through 13 below.

5
6
7

6.

The General Services Administration (“GSA”) is a federal agency charged by

Congress with responsibilities related to the disposal of real property interests of the United States.
7.

The Department of the Interior is a federal executive department charged by

8

Congress with the responsibility to manage land owned by the United States and to dispose of

9

some of those lands consistent with federal laws and regulations. The Department manages

10

millions of acres of such land through its component bureaus, including the Bureau of Land

11

Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian

12

Affairs, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

13

8.

The Department of Defense is a federal executive department charged by Congress

14

with the responsibility to manage military installations and other property owned by the United

15

States through its components, including the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy,

16

and the Department of the Air Force.

17

9.

The Department of Agriculture is a federal executive department charged by

18

Congress with responsibilities that include managing lands owned by the United States, including

19

management by the U.S. Forest Service of millions of acres of National Forest System lands.

20

10.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) is a federal executive department

21

charged by Congress with the responsibility to provide healthcare, benefits, and memorial services

22

to eligible veterans and others. VA is also charged by Congress with responsibilities related to

23

hundreds of hospitals, clinics, cemeteries, and other real property owned by the United States,

24

including the responsibility to grant easements and to lease or otherwise dispose of unneeded real

25

property.

26

11.

The Department of Homeland Security is a federal executive department charged

27

by Congress with the responsibility to manage, through the United States Coast Guard, military

28

installations and other property owned by the United States.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 2

1

12.

The United States Postal Service is an independent establishment of the Executive

2

Branch of the Government of the United States charged by Congress — in part under its

3

constitutional authority to “establish Post Offices and post Roads,” art. I, § 8, cl. 7 — with the

4

responsibility of establishing and maintaining postal facilities; providing such postal facilities as

5

it determines are needed; and holding, maintaining, selling, leasing, or otherwise disposing of such

6

property or any interest therein.

7

13.

The Department of Health and Human Services is a federal executive department

8

charged by Congress in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act with the responsibility to

9

convey certain real property owned by the United States for public health uses and to assist the

10

homeless.

11

14.

Defendant State of California (“State”) is a state of the United States.

12

15.

Defendant Edmund G. Brown, Jr., is the Governor of the State of California. He is

13

sued in his official capacity.

14
15

16.

Defendant California State Lands Commission (“SLC”) is an agency of the State

of California, with responsibilities under state law to manage lands owned by the State.

16

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

17

The Supremacy and Property Clauses of the Constitution

18

17.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides: “This Constitution, and the

19

Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . , shall be the supreme

20

Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the

21

Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

22

18.

The Property Clause of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall have Power

23

to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property

24

belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. In our constitutional system, the

25

“power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitation.” United States v.

26

City & County of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29 (1940).

27

///

28

///
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 3

1

The Act Admitting California into the Union

2

19.

On September 9, 1850, Congress enacted “An Act for the Admission of the State

3

of California into the Union,” ch. 50, 9 Stat. 452. Section 3 of the Act provides in relevant part

4

that “the said State of California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that the

5

people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the primary

6

disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby the title

7

of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned.” 9 Stat.

8

at 452.

9

Federal Statutes Authorizing Conveyances Purportedly Subject to SB 50

10

20.

Under the authority of the Property Clause, Congress has enacted a broad array of

11

statutes that delegate to federal agencies authority to convey interests in real property owned by

12

the United States, including by (but not limited to) conveying lands or interests in lands through

13

sales, donations, or exchanges; by issuing leases; and by granting easements or rights of way. In

14

these statutes, Congress has either specified, or charged federal agencies with the authority and

15

responsibility to determine, when, to whom, for what purposes, and on what conditions such

16

interests will be conveyed.

17

conditions and limitations imposed by Congress and by the agencies themselves in their

18

regulations implementing these statutes.

19
20

21.

Federal agencies effect these conveyances subject to specific

The statutes that authorize or otherwise govern conveyances of federal real property

purportedly subject to SB 50 include (but are not limited to) the following:

21



10 U.S.C. §§ 2663(e), 2667-2668, 2688, 2878, 18240;

22



14 U.S.C. §§ 92-93, 685;

23



16 U.S.C. § 460d;

24



General Exchange Act of 1922, 16 U.S.C. §§ 485-486;

25



Small Tracts Act of 1983, 16 U.S.C. §§ 521d, 521e;

26



National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §§ 668dd-668ee;

27



23 U.S.C. §§ 107(d), 317;

28



Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 29 U.S.C. § 3249(b);

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 4

1



Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-54;

2



Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. §§ 181-287;

3



33 U.S.C. § 558b;

4



38 U.S.C. §§ 2405, 2412, 8103, 8118, 8122, 8124, 8161-8169;

5



Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C. §§ 401(5), 403(b)(3), 404(a)(3);

6



40 U.S.C. §§ 541-559, 581, 1314, 3304;

7



McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11411-11412;

8



Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, 43 U.S.C. §§ 869 to 869-4;

9



Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1713, 1716-1722, 1746,
1761;

10
11



49 U.S.C. §§ 47151-47153;

12



51 U.S.C. § 20145;

13



Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1968, 54 U.S.C. § 102901;

14



54 U.S.C. §§ 305103-305104;

15



Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-510, tit. XXIX, pt. A,
104 Stat. 1485, 1808-19 (1990), as amended;

16
17



Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. No. 101-510, div. B,

18

§ 2824, 104 Stat. 1485, 1790-91 (1990), as amended by Pub. L. No. 103-160, § 2834, 107

19

Stat. 1547, 1896 (1993);

20



21
22

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. H, § 412, 118 Stat. 2809,
3259 (2004);



Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-114, § 3182(b), 121 Stat.

23

1041, 1165-66, as amended by Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014,

24

Pub. L. No. 113-121, § 6005(a), 128 Stat. 1193, 1357;

25



26
27
28

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, §§ 30053006, 128 Stat. 3292, 3742-45 (2014);



Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-120, § 501, 130 Stat. 27, 67-68
(2016);

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 5

1



West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-226, 130 Stat. 926; and

2



Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, Pub. L. No. 114-322, § 3607, 130

3

Stat. 1628, 1795-96 (2016).

4

SB 50

5

22.

California Senate Bill No. 50, Chapter 535, was approved by Defendant Brown on

6

October 6, 2017. SB 50 became effective, as a matter of California law, on January 1, 2018. A

7

true and correct copy of SB 50 is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

8
9
10

23.

Section 4 of SB 50 added Section 8560 to the California Public Resources Code.

Section 8560(b)(1) makes it “the policy of the State of California to discourage conveyances that
transfer ownership of federal public lands in California from the federal government.”
24.

11

Section 8560(a)(2) defines the “conveyance[s]” to which the legislation purports to

12

apply to include “any method, including sale, donation, or exchange, by which all or a portion of

13

the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to federal lands located in California is

14

transferred to another entity.” Section 8560(a)(3) defines the term “Federal public lands” to mean

15

“any land owned by the United States, including the surface estate, the subsurface estate, or any

16

improvements on those estates.”
25.

17

Section 8560(b)(2)(A) states: “Except as provided in this chapter, conveyances of

18

federal public lands in California are void ab initio unless the [SLC] was provided with the right

19

of first refusal to the conveyance or the right to arrange for the transfer of the federal public land

20

to another entity.” The only conveyances exempted from this and other purported requirements

21

of SB 50 (by a new Section 8561 of the California Public Resources Code) are “sale[s] of real

22

property acquired by a federal agency through a foreclosure proceeding.”

23

26.

Section 8560(b)(2)(B) provides that the SLC “may seek declaratory and injunctive

24

relief from a court of competent jurisdiction to contest conveyances made to any entity unless the

25

requirements of this paragraph are met.”

26

27.

Section 8560(b)(2)(D)(i) provides: “Prior to the conveyance of federal public lands

27

in California, if the [SLC] was provided with the right of first refusal or the right to arrange for the

28

///
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 6

1

transfer of the federal public lands to another entity, the [SLC] shall issue a certificate affirming

2

compliance with this section.”

3

28.

Section 2 of SB 50 added Section 6223 to the California Government Code.

4

Section 6223(a) provides: “A person shall not knowingly present for recording or filing with a

5

county recorder a deed, instrument, or other document related to a conveyance subject to Section

6

8560 of the Public Resources Code unless it is accompanied by a certificate of compliance from

7

the [SLC]. A person who presents for recording or filing with a county recorder a deed, instrument,

8

or other document in violation of this section is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand

9

dollars ($5,000).”

10

29.

Section 3 of SB 50 added Section 27338 to the California Government Code.

11

Section 27338 provides: “A deed, instrument, or other document related to a conveyance that is

12

subject to Section 8560 of the Public Resources Code shall be titled ‘Federal Public Land Deed of

13

Conveyance’ and shall not be recorded without a certificate from the [SLC]. The federal agency

14

wishing to convey federal public lands shall ensure that the deed, instrument, or other conveyance

15

document is titled in the manner required by this section.”

16
17
18

30.

None of these provisions applies to conveyances of land by citizens of California

or other persons. By its terms, SB 50 applies to conveyances of federal public lands alone.
31.

The SLC does not intend to issue any certificate of compliance pursuant to

19

Section 8560(b)(2)(D) without first having evaluated on a case-by-case basis whether to exercise

20

or waive the rights purportedly granted to it by SB 50.

21

32.

The SLC intends to evaluate whether to exercise or waive the rights purportedly

22

granted to it by SB 50 at its regularly scheduled meetings, which are held at two- to three-month

23

intervals.

24

33.

No California statutes, regulations, or other legal requirements, including SB 50

25

itself, require the SLC to make a decision within a reasonable time or within any specified period

26

of time regarding whether to exercise the rights purportedly granted to it by SB 50.

27
28

34.

No federal agency has offered the SLC a right of first refusal (or the right to arrange

for transfer to another entity) with respect to a conveyance purportedly subject to SB 50.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 7

1

Examples of Specific Conveyances Purportedly Subject to SB 50

2

Corporate Way Pocket Parcel

3

35.

Prior to January 1, 2018, the GSA posted on a public website information indicating

4

that in January 2018, it would begin an auction soliciting competitive bids for a parcel of real

5

property located between 1110 and 1120 Corporate Way, Sacramento, California. Although the

6

parcel is owned by the Postal Service and is subject to the Postal Service’s disposal authority, the

7

GSA is auctioning the property pursuant to agreements with the Postal Service. This parcel is

8

referred to as the “Corporate Way Pocket Parcel” and consists of approximately 1.7 acres of

9

undeveloped land.

10

36.

In late December 2017, the SLC sent the GSA a letter stating that under SB 50, the

11

“GSA must provide the [SLC] with the right of first refusal or right to arrange for the transfer of

12

the parcel to another entity in order to comply with State law and validly transfer the parcel.” A

13

true and correct copy of the SLC’s letter to GSA is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

14

37.

The GSA received no bids on the Corporate Way Pocket Parcel. The auction was

15

temporarily suspended in early March 2018, in part because of the potential cloud on marketable

16

title resulting from SB 50. SB 50 has also created uncertainty regarding whether and how the GSA

17

should proceed with other auctions that it had planned to initiate in the future, including within the

18

next three months.

19
20

Admiral’s Cove Property
38.

Prior to January 1, 2018, the Department of the Navy entered into a contract under

21

which it intended to convey to a developer, for a purchase price of approximately $38 million, the

22

fee simple interest in the “Admiral’s Cove property,” located in Alameda, California. The GSA

23

serves as the Navy’s agent in connection with this transaction, providing services under an

24

interagency agreement.

25

39.

This property was formerly used as housing for a military installation at the Naval

26

Air Station Alameda. The Navy and a local redevelopment agency expended substantial resources

27

over a period of many years, including in conducting environmental reviews, before the Navy

28

decided to convey the property.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 8

1

40.

Although the conveyance of the Admiral’s Cove property was originally scheduled

2

to close on January 31, 2018, the purchaser has repeatedly requested that the closing be delayed,

3

citing SB 50 (among other reasons). In the exercise of its discretion, GSA has thus far granted

4

these requests. The purchaser asked the SLC for an exemption from or waiver of the purported

5

requirements of SB 50. The SLC indicated it will consider the conveyance at a meeting scheduled

6

for April 19, 2018.

7

Arc Vineyards Parcel

8
9
10

41.

Prior to January 1, 2018, the Department of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land

Management, proposed to sell the surface estate of a roughly 5.9-acre isolated parcel of public land
located in Santa Barbara County, California, to resolve an inadvertent trespass.

11

42.

As part of its decision-making process, the Department of the Interior expended

12

resources over a period of years in amending a land use plan, carrying out environmental reviews,

13

and securing an appraisal to determine the fair market value of the parcel. The Department

14

provided timely opportunities for comment by the public, the SLC, and the State, including a 60-

15

day period of review by Defendant Brown. No agency or officer of the State of California objected

16

to the proposed sale.

17

43.

On February 12, 2018, the SLC sent the Department a letter stating that the Arc

18

Vineyards conveyance is subject to SB 50 and demanding that the Department supply information

19

to allow the SLC to decide whether to exercise its purported rights under SB 50. A true and correct

20

copy of the SLC’s letter to the Department is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

21

City of Dublin, Alameda County, Property

22

44.

Prior to January 1, 2018, the Department of the Army entered into a land exchange

23

agreement with a developer in connection with a multi-phase transaction involving exchanges of

24

real property located in the City of Dublin, Alameda County for construction of facilities at Camp

25

Parks, an Army military installation.

26

45.

The planned conveyances, and prior conveyances under this agreement, were the

27

subject of careful planning, study, and environmental review conducted over a period of years.

28

///
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 9

1

46.

After the Army’s transaction partner asked the SLC for an exemption from or

2

waiver of SB 50’s purported requirements, the SLC considered the federal conveyances at its

3

February 27, 2018 meeting. In its own words, the SLC, “in its first instance considering federal

4

property conveyance pursuant to SB 50, exercised its right of first refusal to consider acquiring

5

about 78 acres of federal public lands in the City of Dublin.” A true and correct copy of the “State

6

Lands Commission February [2018] Meeting Highlights” issued by the SLC is attached hereto as

7

Exhibit 4.

8

47.

At that meeting, SLC exercised its purported right of first refusal by accepting the

9

recommendation of its staff to “Find that it is not in the best interests of the State for the [SLC] to

10

acquire 78.21 acres of land proposed for conveyance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to

11

Dublin Crossing, LLC, or to arrange for its transfer to another entity.” True and correct copies of

12

the staff report regarding the subject conveyances and the resulting Certificate of Compliance

13

dated March 2, 2018 are attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6, respectively.

14

48.

On March 13, 2018, the Army’s transaction partner requested that the Army

15

approve a revised form of the deed for these conveyances that would include the title “Federal

16

Public Land Deed of Conveyance” in order to comply with the purported requirements of Section

17

3 of SB 50 and to ensure the local recording office will record the deed.

18

Conveyance to Lloyd L. Fields

19

49.

On December 16, 2016, Congress enacted the Water Infrastructure Improvements

20

for the Nation Act. Section 3607 of the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to Lloyd

21

L. Fields a patent for a 41.15-acre parcel of federal land, upon Fields’ execution of a deed

22

conveying certain property to the United States to be held in trust for the exclusive use and benefit

23

of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Section 3607 further directs the Secretary to grant an

24

easement over federal land to the City of Banning, California.

25

50.

The Department of the Interior has made substantial preparations necessary to carry

26

out the congressional mandate to issue a patent to Lloyd L. Fields. The Department intends to

27

move forward with the transaction notwithstanding SB 50’s purported requirements.

28

///
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 10

1
2

West Los Angeles Campus
51.

Prior to January 1, 2018, the VA made substantial progress towards finalizing and

3

implementing a framework Draft Master Plan (publicly issued in January 2016) to revitalize its

4

388-acre West Los Angeles Campus. Pursuant to the Draft Master Plan, the VA contemplates

5

leasing real property to other entities — in accordance with 38 U.S.C. §§ 8161-8169 and the West

6

Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 — for the purpose of providing permanent supportive housing

7

and related services for local veterans. The VA also contemplates issuing an easement to the City

8

of Los Angeles in support of the planned Purple Line Metro Project. These actions would help

9

restore the campus to a safe and welcoming community for veterans and help to reduce veteran

10

homelessness in Los Angeles.

11
12

Other Conveyances
52.

In 2018, federal agencies plan to carry out additional conveyances of real property

13

purportedly subject to and restricted by SB 50. Federal agencies plan to carry out additional

14

conveyances in 2019 and subsequent years, consistent with statutory and regulatory authorities.

15
16

Effects of SB 50
53.

SB 50 purports to authorize the SLC to override the determinations of Congress or

17

federal agencies or both regarding when, to whom, and for what purpose conveyances of federal

18

interests in property located in California will be made, including determinations made by or under

19

the federal statutes discussed in Paragraph 21 above and in connection with the specific examples

20

of conveyances discussed in Paragraphs 35 through 51 above.

21

54.

SB 50 creates a cloud on record and marketable title and, as a result, creates

22

uncertainty, the significant potential for litigation and other expenditures of resources, and other

23

burdens for the United States and those with whom it deals. This may result in a loss of opportunity

24

to convey in a manner and at a price that best serves the United States’ needs.

25
26
27
28

55.

SB 50 delays (potentially indefinitely) and thereby obstructs conveyances of federal

real property interests in California.
56.

SB 50 interferes with federal agencies’ ability to comply with obligations under

binding agreements with transaction partners or other federal agencies, including agreements
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 11

1

entered into prior to January 1, 2018, and to comply with court orders. It is impossible for certain

2

federal agencies to offer a right of first refusal (or a right to arrange transfer to another entity) and

3

also comply with these obligations and orders.

4
5
6

57.

As a result of uncertainty created by the enactment of SB 50 and the requirements

it purports to impose, federal conveyances have been, and will continue to be, delayed.
58.

As a result of uncertainty created by the enactment of SB 50, federal agencies have

7

been, and will continue to be, unable to finalize conveyances that would have been finalized but

8

for the enactment of SB 50.

9

59.

Unless and until the Court declares that SB 50 is unconstitutional and enjoins its

10

implementation, SB 50 will have the effect of increasing costs and reducing the revenues that flow

11

to the United States from conveyances of federal property.

12

60.

Unless and until the Court declares that SB 50 is unconstitutional and enjoins its

13

implementation, SB 50 will disrupt the market for land owned by the United States in California,

14

in that fewer potential buyers are likely to submit bids in connection with competitive sales and

15

other transactions, or participate in negotiated transactions, regarding such land.

16

61.

Unless and until the Court declares that SB 50 is unconstitutional and enjoins its

17

implementation, SB 50 will artificially depress the market value of land owned by the United

18

States in California, in that potential buyers of such land likely will be willing to pay relatively

19

less to the United States.

20

62.

Unless and until the Court declares that SB 50 is unconstitutional and enjoins its

21

implementation, SB 50 will obstruct federal land exchange transactions, including exchanges

22

expressly directed by Congress, through which the United States seeks to acquire real property

23

interests to serve important purposes and further important objectives established by Congress.

24
25

63.

conveyances of property by citizens of California or other persons.

26
27
28

SB 50 does not, and will not, have the aforementioned effects with respect to

DECLARATORY RELIEF ALLEGATIONS

64.

There is an actual controversy between the United States and Defendants with

respect to the validity of SB 50.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 12

1

65.

The United States asserts that SB 50 is, on its face and as applied, contrary to the

2

Constitution and laws of the United States and is therefore invalid; and that SB 50 may not lawfully

3

be applied or enforced against the United States and those with whom it deals.

4
5

66.

Defendants, by contrast, assert that SB 50 is valid, and they intend to apply and

enforce it against the United States and those with whom it deals.

6

67.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), this Court has the authority (and should exercise

7

the authority) to declare the legal rights and obligations of the parties with respect to SB 50 and its

8

application or enforcement.

9

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

10

(Intergovernmental Immunity)

11
12
13

68.

The United States incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 67

69.

SB 50 discriminates against the United States and those with whom it deals because

above.

14

it imposes restrictions on conveyances of property by the United States, and on recordation of

15

deeds and other instruments related to such conveyances, that the State does not impose on its own

16

citizens or on any other persons. Because the restrictions apply only to conveyances of federal

17

lands, SB 50 also discriminates against persons with whom the United States deals as transaction

18

partners and potential transaction partners, including various local public entities in California.

19

70.

In so discriminating against the United States and those with whom it deals, SB 50

20

violates intergovernmental immunity and, consequently, violates the Supremacy Clause of the

21

Constitution.

22

71.

Moreover, SB 50 purports to directly regulate the United States and those with

23

whom it deals by compelling federal agencies to uniquely title all conveyance documents and to

24

provide the SLC with a right of first refusal to conveyances of federal property interests or the

25

right to arrange for the transfer of the property interest to a different entity selected by the SLC.

26

72.

SB 50 further purports to directly regulate the United States and those with whom

27

it deals by authorizing the SLC to delay (potentially indefinitely) and thereby obstruct conveyances

28

by federal agencies of federal interests in property located in California.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 13

1

73.

SB 50 further purports to directly regulate the United States and those with whom

2

it deals by authorizing the SLC to override the determinations of Congress or federal agencies or

3

both regarding when, to whom, and for what purpose federal interests in property will be conveyed.

4

74.

SB 50 further purports to directly regulate the United States and those with whom

5

it deals by obstructing federal land exchange transactions, including those expressly directed by

6

Congress, through which the United States seeks to acquire real property interests to serve

7

important purposes and further important objectives established by Congress.

8
9
10

75.

In so purporting to regulate the United States and those with whom it deals, SB 50

further violates intergovernmental immunity and, consequently, further violates the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution.

11

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

12

(Preemption)

13
14
15

76.

The United States incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 to 67

77.

SB 50 is in direct violation of the Act for the Admission of the State of California

above.

16

into the Union, which states: “California is admitted into the Union upon the express condition

17

that the people of said State, through their legislature or otherwise, shall never interfere with the

18

primary disposal of the public lands within its limits, and shall pass no law and do no act whereby

19

the title of the United States to, and right to dispose of, the same shall be impaired or questioned.”

20

9 Stat. at 452.

21

78.

The Property Clause, Act for the Admission of the State of California into the

22

Union, and the federal statutes listed in Paragraph 21 above, as well as other federal statutes and

23

implementing regulations governing federal conveyances of federal land, occupy the field with

24

respect to regulation of conveyances of federal interests in real property. These federal authorities

25

comprehensively regulate federal conveyances, leaving no room for SB 50 or other state

26

regulation. In addition, these federal authorities establish that the federal interest in conveyances

27

of federal interests in real property is “so dominant” that it should be assumed to preclude

28

enforcement of SB 50 or any other state regulation of these conveyances.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 14

1

79.

SB 50 conflicts with, and is therefore preempted by, these same federal authorities,

2

because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and

3

objectives of Congress reflected in such authorities.

4

80.

SB 50 further conflicts with, and is therefore preempted by these same federal

5

authorities, because it is impossible for most federal agencies to comply with both SB 50 and these

6

authorities.

7
8
9
10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

81.

Wherefore, Plaintiff United States of America prays that the Court enter judgment

against Defendants and award the following relief:
(a)

a declaration that SB 50 — including Sections 8560 and 8561 of the California

11

Public Resources Code and Sections 6223 and 27338 of the California Government Code — is

12

invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, both on its face and as

13

applied to the United States of America, its agencies, its officers, and those with whom it deals;

14
15

(b)

preliminary and permanent injunctions against any application of SB 50 to the

United States of America, its agencies, its officers, and those with whom it deals;

16

(c)

costs of suit; and

17

(d)

such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

18

Dated: April 2, 2018.

19

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Eric Grant
JEFFREY H. WOOD
Acting Assistant Attorney General
ERIC GRANT
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JUSTIN HEMINGER
STACY STOLLER
PETER McVEIGH
Attorneys
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice

20
21
22
23
24
25

27

McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
DAVID T. SHELLEDY
Civil Chief, Assistant United States Attorney

28

Counsel for Plaintiff United States of America

26

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Page 15

1

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

2

1.

California Senate Bill No. 50 (Oct. 6, 2017).

3

2.

Letter from California State Lands Commission to U.S. General Services Administration

4

(Dec. 23, 2017).

5

3.

Letter from California State Lands Commission to BLM Bakersfield (Feb. 12, 2018).

6

4.

State Lands Commission February Meeting Highlights (Feb. 27, 2018).

7

5.

SLC Staff Report C86 (Feb. 27, 2018).

8

6.

SLC Certificate of Compliance (Mar. 2, 2018).

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief