United States v. 32.42 Acres of Land, More or Less, Located in San Diego County
683 F.3d 1030
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lands Commission appeals district court’s judgment in a condemnation by the United States of about 32.42 acres in San Diego for Navy use.
- The Property was entirely tidelands at statehood in 1850; 4.88 acres remain tidelands, 27.54 acres are filled land.
- District court held the taking extinguished California’s public trust in the entire parcel, with trust remaining only in the tidelands.
- Navy seeks full fee simple ownership; Lands Commission contends public trust cannot be extinguished by federal eminent domain.
- The United States followed statutory procedures; the action resulted in a jury-determined compensation of $2,910,000.
- Court reviews whether federal eminent domain power permits extinguishment of state public trust rights despite equal-footing doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal eminent domain can extinguish public trust rights | Lands Commission: public trust cannot be extinguished by US. | United States: eminent domain extinguishes all interests authorized by the taking. | Yes; federal eminent domain can extinguish public trust. |
| Effect of equal-footing doctrine on extinguishment of public trust | Equal-footing preserves state title; cannot extinguish public trust. | Equal-footing does not bar extinguishment when taking for public use. | Equal-footing does not prevent extinguishment; federal takings prevail. |
| Scope of federal navigational servitude restricting eminent domain | Navigational servitude limits state rights and public trust. | Servitude does not cap federal eminent domain power. | Navigational servitude does not limit eminent domain power. |
| Relation of public trust to Illinois Central-type constraints on alienation | Public trust cannot be extinguished without impairment to public interest. | Supremacy Clause allows extinguishment where federal purpose is served. | Supremacy Clause permits extinguishment; state public trust yields to federal takings. |
| Whether quiescent public trust is appropriate relief | Public trust would become quiescent, re-emerging on future private transfer. | No need to preserve trust; taking in fee simple is authorized. | Not adopted; court rejects quiescent-trust concept as controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946) (federal power of eminent domain with constitutional authority to take for public use)
- Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842) (equal-footing doctrine and title to tidelands in original states)
- Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) (equal-footing doctrine and state title to submerged lands at statehood)
- Alaska v. United States, 521 U.S. 1 (1997) (policy and scope of federal reserved rights to submerged lands)
- Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. v. Oregon, 429 U.S. 363 (1977) (equal-footing implications; federal navigational servitude context)
- PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, 132 S. Ct. 1215 (2012) (public trust as state law matter; supremacy of federal takings power)
- Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892) (public trust as governmental; alienation restrictions under state law)