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)
(202) 514-4642
peter.mcveigh@usdoj.gov
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
(916) 554-2700
david.shelledy@usdoj.gov
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?