United States v. City of Arcata
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25706
9th Cir.2010Background
- Arcata and Eureka enacted Youth Protection Acts prohibiting federal military recruiters from contacting or enlisting minors under eighteen, with civil penalties for infractions.
- Ordinances expressly target federal recruiters, but exempt non-government individuals; cities intend enforcement against the federal government.
- United States sued December 23, 2008, seeking declaration of invalidity under the Supremacy Clause and an injunction against enforcement.
- District court granted judgment on the pleadings, holding the ordinances unconstitutional as direct regulation of the federal government in violation of intergovernmental immunity.
- On appeal, the cities challenged jurisdiction; the court addressed standing and Declaratory Judgment Act/m federal question jurisdiction before merits.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the ordinances violate intergovernmental immunity and are not saved by preemption or Tenth Amendment arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the US's claims have injury in fact to support standing? | US contends it is directly affected because the ordinances regulate and restrict federal recruiters. | Arcata/Eureka argue no personal, concrete injury to the US; only a hypothetical impact on federal recruiting. | Yes; injury in fact exists because ordinances directly restrict federal recruiters and subject the US to enforcement. |
| Does the Declaratory Judgment Act/m federal question jurisdiction apply to this federal defense scenario? | US invokes 28 U.S.C. §1345 and §1331; federal question jurisdiction lies because the suit invalidates state law under federal law. | Cities argue no federal claim, only a federal defense; DJA cannot create jurisdiction. | Yes; independent jurisdiction exists under §1345 and §1331, and the federal question arises from the federal-law challenge to state ordinances. |
| Do the ordinances violate intergovernmental immunity under the Supremacy Clause? | US contends the ordinances directly regulate and discriminate against the federal government. | Cities argue no direct regulation or discrimination, and Tenth Amendment police powers permit regulation. | Yes; ordinances directly regulate federal conduct and discriminate, violating intergovernmental immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (requires concrete, particularized injury for standing)
- Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (limits federal standing and intergovernmental concerns in immunity analysis)
- North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423 (1990) (intergovernmental immunity: nondiscrimination principle against federal government)
- Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. United States, 355 U.S. 534 (1958) (enforcement of federal property rights and preemption considerations)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819) (doctrine of intergovernmental immunity historically roots of federal-state limits)