Federal Enclaves: The Impact of Exclusive Legislative Jurisdiction Upon Civil Litigations

• Author: Captain Richard T Altieri
• Pages: 02

I. ISTRODUCTIOS

A decade ago. Lt was estimated that one million' persons were residmgon federally owned land within thestates that waasub~ect to "exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction.". Although more recent population statistics are unavailable. the unique furisdic. tionalstatus continues m pose a hardship for significant numbers of "enclave"' residents mho seek a forum m which to pursue eivd litigation The problems these individuals encomter are especial. ly acute where the litigation arises hom acts occurring upon the enclave itself For example enclave residents deairing to obtain iudicral solutione for minor contract, tort or domestic relations problems arising on post often experience difficulty finding a coun posaessing furisdiction appropriate to resolve the controversy It is apparent that relief for most c~vi1actions would requve access to a

This srtiele 16 an adaptation of B thesis presented LoTheJudge AdvocateGenoral's School. U S Army.Charlotie~ville.Vngu1ia.whilerheauthorwassmemberof the

Twenty thud Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Class The opinions end con ciusimaexpmaied in thm ailicle are those of lheavfhor and do notneeasarily repre ~enfthe views ofThe Judge AdvoeatrG~ners~rSchoolor any other governmental

agency**JAGC. U S. Amy Chief Defense Counsel. 4th Infantry Diwsian & Far1 Carson. Fort Carson, Colorado BS,

1'374

Albany Law Sehwl MemberoftheBar.ofNiwYorkandtheFederalDis,rictCovrtfor the Northern D~stricf of New York.

1 Note, FzderaIEnrloms. Through lhe LookingGIass Dorkly ISSIRACI"~~ L.Wv

754 n I (1964). cilrng Adivalmant o/L~ggialoliusJvrisdrctian on Federal Enchws. Hearing* on S 815 &lare the Svbeomm on lnfrrgovarnmanlal Relations of the

a The tem ~pplle8u1 those situations where the state has made no r e ~ e w ~ m n of

avthoritym >18cessmn of~YnadietiantothofederaIgovernmen1 e~eepttherlshiia eewe civd and Criminal process for activities occurring off the land mvolved The term also applies natwilhstanding the fact that the ntato may e~eicise certain authority by virtue of the express permilision of a federal etsiu~e C S A n ). OIY REPORT OF THE INTERDEP&RPMENTAL COYMlPlEE FOR THE DUlrY OP JCRlslilr'nou OVER FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE DATES pt If, 81 I D (1'3571 [hereinafter cited as

On oovPrnmontai

1'367. United States Mil~fary Academy, J D,

senore cOmm.

oPPrarions.

66th cone..

let seas 16 IIW

state, rather than federal caurt:l but it is indeed possible that a remedy in the host6 state's courts will be difficult if not impossible to obtain for most simple civil suits.

The difficulty is caused by the confusion in the law surrounding such keyareasofenclave-basedlitigationasserviceofprocess,sub-ject matter jurisdiction, and applicable substantive law For example, there is confusion and a consequent lack of predictability for the attorney an such basic issues as whether judicial process of the host state may be served withrn enclave boundaries to obtain in personam jurisdiction if the cawe has arisen there; whether the host state's extraterritorial service statutes operate when each of the "contacts"' occurs upon the enclave; whether the local state court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain domiciliary ac-tions on behalf of enclave residents; whether an ensuing judgment could withstand collateral attack: and what substantive law would govern the action.

Surprismgly, the answer6 to these basic questions are unclear. largely as a result of the vacillating manner with which courts have viewed the effect of excluswe legislative jurisdiction.8 However, recent cases have suggested B new interpretation of the term and have moved away from the "enclave" or "state within a ~tate"~concept. Increasingly, state jurisdiction over private matters arising upon areas subject to exclusive iegislativejurisdiction is being recognized.'" Although rules regarding the proper application of procedural and substantive law have not kept pace with this emerging trend, the recent opinions do offer a measure of predictability to the attorney seekrng to litigate an enclavebased action.

It is the purpose of this article to provide a base upon which to

. See the-cases discussed ~n Section /I inira" Earl) precedent likened land mess subject 10 ~ x c l u s i i ~ lepislaiive jvrirdicilon to federal Islandrarencla~es.such Lhsra 'rtstewfhm aslate' warbald tnex~ri

Smks

Y Reeae. 19 Ohio St ,105 118691 Howe\ei. iecenl aulhnritb has nhandnnad that analogy, Hoaard v Cornm'rs. 344 US 524 1195.11

' BoardofChosenFreeholdpriv McCarkle 9RN J SUD~

4:4,i?iAM6401Sumr

Cl L DIU 1958, 5,

ground that predictability. Recent authority will be examined and ita reinterpretation of the meaning of exclusive legislativejurisdiction will be presented. This recent interpretation will then be applied to the practical issues of service of procese, subject matter jurisdiction, and choice of substantive 1aw.This search for predict. ability in civil law principles applicable toenclavebasedlitigation must begin with an examination of the federal power of exclusive legislative juridiction itself.

11. EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION A. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Article I of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power ta exercise "exclusive legislation" over land areas acquired within the states for federal purposes:

This section will attempt to defie the nature and limits of this power of "exclusive legislation." Although judicial opinion has consistently equated it with "jurisdiction,"'z its excbsiwty is in doubt." The issue is this: Does a measure of state authority continue over enclave areas, or does state authority ceasewithin those lands by virtue of the constitutional language of clause ll? A start. ing point in the resolution of this question is the history of the enactment of the clause itaelt

2. HISTORY OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE '%XCL USIVE LEGISLA TION CLAUSE In June of 1183 the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, wa8 subjected to four days ofharassment by soldiers

   ' c s CO\.iT Bit I, q 8. el 17'Howard Y Camm'rs '344 US 624 11953): Pollard V. Hagan 44 US (3 How )212. 223 1 1 R l i l

   ' ' For example, it has been stated that rn properly interpretmg the rneanmg of exc l ~ ~ i i e lemslative iunsdiction ' Broader or clearer language [/n the CS Con-~tifutmnlcould no1 be uaed to exclude all other authority than thsf of Congress '' Fori Leavenworth R R. Ca Y. Lsre 114 US b25 11M6). Yet ~n Hoiisrd o Com-mmmnerb the Court held that B Btsternlght.xere~s.~tapoweravrr federal enclaves provided 11 did "01 mkrfere with the iurlsdictlon asserted by the federal govern-ment It stated thsf a dual relstmshlo existed that the aovereizn nahta ~n that

   MILITARY LAN' REVIEW rvoi. 72

   demanding their pay. Although there wasno physicalviolence, the proceedings were disrupted and the Congress was forced to leave thecity. The inability ofthelvcalgovernmenttacontroltherioting

   WBB a matter of serious concern to the legislators." As a result of this incident, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Madison proposed that land be acquired for a permanent Beat of government where jurisdiction would be exclusively federal. In thatway thesecurityandintegrity ofthenew governmentwould be protected from the interference and undue influence of any state.ls It clearly appears throughout the early legislative history that this idea of prevention of state interference with governmental ac. tivities was the primary concern of the framers in considering the need for exclusive iurisdiction.16

   During the ensuing Convention discussions. it was also suggested by Madison thst the executive branch be authorized to acquire land within the states for forts and other purposes.1r However, the question of the jurisdictional status of those lands did not attract much attention during the Convention debates.18 It was, rather, the question of the advisability of acquiring jurisdic. tion over what is now the District of Columbia that seems to have drawn the majority of the attention.lP

   Notably, the initial proposals concerning acquiringland for forts did not include any provision relating to theacqvisitionofjvrisdic. tmn over such areas.20 The absence of such a provision stands in cahtrast to proposals which did include a provision for theexercise of jurisdiction over theseat ofgovernment.21 Theinferenceappears to be that the framers viewed the possibility of state intrusion into the affairs ofenclave area8 as being more remotethan thepoesibilIty of interference with the seat of government.

   However, after these initial proposals had been referred to comrnictee. a draft constitutional clause emerged which combined the power to acquire land for the seat of government and outlying

   enciabe situaurin id a<2i

   . id at 14

   Id ik

   enclave areas, and provided for a power of "exclusive legislation"

   To exereme exelu~i~elegidation in all cases svhamrva over such dimid

   (notexasdins tenmilraequare)aimsy, by cesniionofpartitieular.tsteaand aarptanee of the Ieg~Iat~rebeeorne the lrat ofsovemrncnt of the UnitedStat-; sndtoexerciaelikssvthorityoverallplaccipureha~fforthF91ee-tion of foM, magazinw, arsenals, doek.yadi, and other needful buildingi.*lThe debate concerning the draft clause was brief, and no attention apparently waa duectedat iteinclusionofthefederaljurisdictionalpoaier over the outlying enclave areas.ls

   It wasnotuntil thestateratifyingmnventionsthatthepowerof exclusive legidation over enclave arean was questioned.In answer to criticisms raised during these ratifying conventions, Madison in The Federalist Papers explained the need for such federalpower:

   The needry of a like authority over fort.. magadna, etc. cstabhhd bythe General Government. ianotlsuevidsnt.Th~pvbliemonsyelpcnddon such placce, and the public prop@ depoiited in them require that they ahould be~r~mptfromth.nvthorityofth.p~eulprItate.Nnwoulditbs proper for theplas~aonwhichWe-rity~fth.mt~.Unionm.ydcpmdto be in any dwee dependent on a partitieular member of it. All obieaioni and emuplei...