Allison v. Boeing Laser Technical Services
689 F.3d 1234
10th Cir.2012Background
- Allison, a Boeing contractor employee, worked on Kirtland Air Force Base, a federally ceded enclave in New Mexico.
- Kirtland Base ceded to the U.S. in 1952-1954, establishing exclusive federal jurisdiction over the enclave.
- Allison asserted state-law employment and tort claims arising from his 2007 termination on the enclave.
- The district court granted summary judgment, holding these state-law claims barred by the federal enclave doctrine, except defamation.
- The issue is whether state common law claims arising after cession can proceed on a federal enclave when Congress has not enacted contrary federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state law post-ceded-enclave is displaced | Allison argues enclave doctrine should not bar post-ceded common law claims. | Boeing/defendants contend only pre-cedion state law applies absent congressional action. | Post-ceded common law claims barred; enclave doctrine governs. |
| Common-law claims vs. statute | Common-law claims can be treated like pre-cedion statutes under Paul exception. | No applicable federal statute or reservation permits these post-ceded common-law claims. | Common-law claims treated the same as statutes; not permitted. |
| Treating judge-made common law | Judge-made common law could be exempt from enclave rules. | Judge-made and legislative changes receive the same enclave treatment. | Federal enclave doctrine applies to judge-made common law as to statutory law. |
| Retroactivity under NM law pre-1954 | NM pre-1954 law (NMSA 38-1-3) retroactively preserves post-1954 changes. | Statute does not render post-cession changes retroactive on enclaves. | No retroactive effect for post-1954 NM employment/tort developments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963) (exclusive enclave jurisdiction; pre-cession law governs unless overridden)
- James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94 (1940) (pre-cession law retained for enclave; Congress must act to update)
- Howard v. Comm’rs of Sinking Fund of City of Louisville, 344 U.S. 624 (1953) (annexation and taxation on enclave; not displacing enclave rule)
- Pacific Coast Dairy v. Dept. of Agriculture, 318 U.S. 285 (1943) (enclave regulatory framework; state schemes apply if current and pre-cession)
- United States v. Jenkins, 734 F.2d 1322 (1983) (enclave jurisdiction and application as per federal control)
- West River Elec. Ass'n, Inc. v. Black Hills Power and Light Co., 918 F.2d 713 (1990) (reservation and withdrawal principles in enclave context)
- Sharpnack v. United States, 355 U.S. 286 (1958) (assimilation of state crimes to federal enclaves; scope of applicability)