695 F.3d 518
6th Cir.2012Background
- Bridge Company is a private Michigan-for-profit entity authorized by Congress to build/operate the Ambassador Bridge; federal role is limited to facilitating international commerce.
- Michigan Supreme Court held Bridge Company is a federal instrumentality for limited purpose, immune from Detroit zoning regulations in 2008 City of Detroit v. Ambassador Bridge Co.
- Commodities Export sued Detroit and United States alleging regulatory taking by Bridge Company; sought injunctive and declaratory relief; Bridge Company later intervened.
- District court granted United States summary judgment on Bridge Company’s federal-instrumentality status cross-claim; injunction issued against Bridge Company’s instrumentality claims.
- Commodities Export later dismissed its remaining claims; United States and Bridge Company challenged district court’s rulings; appellate court affirming.
- Question presented: whether federal courts must defer to state court’s federal-law holding on instrumentality status, and whether the United States may maintain the cross-claim independent of Commodities Export’s suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had independent jurisdiction for the cross-claim. | Commodities Export contends collusion tainted original suit. | United States asserts independent §1345 jurisdiction; cross-claim viable. | Yes; district court had independent federal jurisdiction. |
| Does Michigan Supreme Court’s federal-instrumentality ruling bind federal courts? | Bridge Company argues Michigan ruling controls as state-law. | Federal common-law governs instrumentality status; Michigan ruling non-binding. | Federal common law governs; Michigan ruling not binding. |
| Does the Anti-Injunction Act bar the cross-claim? | City/Commodities petitioned federal court; AIA may apply. | AIA does not bar suits by strangers to state proceedings. | AIA does not bar the United States from pursuing the cross-claim. |
| Should the court apply Pullman abstention or other abstention? | Governor Gottfried-style abstention; state injunction should govern. | No abstention; merits decision appropriate. | No abstention; merits decision appropriate. |
| Was summary judgment proper that Bridge Company is not a federal instrumentality? | Bridge Company closely tied to federal purpose. | Bridge Company private; not controlled by federal government; not instrumentality. | Summary judgment proper; Bridge Company not a federal instrumentality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1995) (federal-instrumentality considerations; federal common-law framing)
- United States v. Miami Univ., 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002) (federal-law questions with federal-common-law treatment)
- Clallam County v. United States, 263 U.S. 341 (1933) (early instrumentality reasoning; government involvement)
- Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375 (1904) (mere contracts with United States not render private entity an instrumentality)
- Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964) (federal-common-law domain for uniquely federal questions)