Leavenworth, Kansas, City of v. CoreCivic, Inc., 2:25-cv-02169

CoreCivic, Inc. operated a detention facility in Leavenworth, Kansas, since 1992; in 2012, a local ordinance began requiring a special use permit for such facilities.
As the facility was already operating, it was grandfathered in as a nonconforming use; CoreCivic lost this status after ceasing operations for 12 months in 2021.
In 2025, CoreCivic applied for, but then withdrew, its application for a special use permit, asserting it did not need one.
The City of Leavenworth sued CoreCivic seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent CoreCivic from operating without the required permit, invoking diversity jurisdiction.
The City did not allege any separate cause of action, relying only on the Declaratory Judgment Act and seeking no monetary damages – only declaratory/injunctive relief.
Both parties filed motions (City for preliminary injunction, CoreCivic to dismiss); the federal court sua sponte considered subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does federal diversity jurisdiction exist?	The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because the facility is valued over that figure; City and CoreCivic are diverse.	The City failed to allege facts showing the value of the declaratory/injunctive relief sought exceeds $75,000; no proper cause of action is pled.	No jurisdiction: The City failed to meet the amount-in-controversy threshold for diversity by not quantifying the value of relief sought.
Is there a valid cause of action without an independent substantive claim?	DJA alone suffices for relief.	DJA does not create an independent cause of action.	The court cannot reach this question without jurisdiction.
Should a preliminary injunction issue?	CoreCivic must be enjoined from operating without a permit.	The court has no basis to grant relief due to lack of jurisdiction and cause of action.	Moot: All motions denied as moot due to dismissal.
Can parties consent to federal jurisdiction?	Not directly argued.	Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver.	No: Jurisdiction is non-waivable, and must exist independently.

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (federal courts cannot reach merits before confirming subject-matter jurisdiction)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (amount in controversy for declaratory relief is measured by the value of the right at issue)
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (plaintiff’s allegations control the amount in controversy if plausible)
Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 906 F.3d 926 (federal courts must dismiss if jurisdiction is lacking)
Lovell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 466 F.3d 893 (either viewpoint rule for amount in controversy in injunctive cases)