917 F.3d 1081
9th Cir.2019Background
- During and after WWII the U.S. took large tracts of private land on Guam for military use; some were later transferred to the government of Guam and used for public purposes including the A.B. Won Pat International Airport (Tiyan).
- Vicente Palacios Crawford is heir to Lot 5204 in Tiyan; his mother received partial compensation in mid-century and later a settlement award in 1993; Crawford filed an ancestral-lands claim under Guam law (Chapter 80 / GALA) seeking further compensation.
- Guam enacted Chapter 80 and related statutes creating the Guam Ancestral Lands Commission (GALC) and a Land Bank Trust intended to compensate ancestral landowners, but implementing regulations for the trust and compensation process were never finalized and payments were not made.
- The airport property was conveyed with federal restrictions (public airport use, revenue restrictions) that prevent return of the land or using airport revenues to pay ancestral claimants.
- Crawford sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of procedural due process and equal protection based on delay/absence of compensation; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GIAA (and its chair Duenas) are proper §1983 defendants | GIAA/Duenas are responsible for delay and thus are proper defendants | GIAA officials had no role in GALC rulemaking or claims processing; GIAA not named in counts | GIAA dismissed as improper party; summary judgment for Duenas affirmed on lack of evidence he deprived plaintiff of process |
| Whether Chapter 80 gives Crawford a constitutionally protected property interest (procedural due process) | Chapter 80, GALA, and related public laws create an entitlement to just compensation and a Land Bank Trust that "shall" pay compensations | Chapter 80 is internally inconsistent, lacks implementing regulations, and does not compel payment, so no defined entitlement | No protected property interest; summary judgment for government on due process claim affirmed |
| Effect of absence of implementing regulations (Land Bank Trust rules) | The statute's mandatory language and legislative history supply an entitlement despite missing rules | Absence of final rules, rejected proposed regulations, and statutory vagueness defeat any reasonable expectation of entitlement | Lack of implementing regulations undermines any claim of entitlement; supports dismissal of due process claim |
| Equal protection: differential treatment of land-returned claimants vs. in-use claimants | Treating returnable (land-return class) and in-use claimants differently is irrational and denies equal protection | Distinction is rational: Land-Return claims are simpler; In-Use claims raise complex issues (land exchange, funding) and legislature may address incrementally | Classification survives rational-basis review; summary judgment for government on equal protection claim affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for cross-motions for summary judgment)
- Nozzi v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 806 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) (protected property interests require statute plus restrictive implementing regulations)
- Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are created by state law and rules)
- Ching v. Mayorkas, 725 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2013) (statutory mandatory language can create nondiscretionary entitlement)
- Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2010) (statutory framework can limit or define the scope of a protected interest)
- Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673 (2012) (rational-basis standard for equal protection review of economic classifications)
- City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 (1976) (legislatures may implement programs step-by-step; courts not to substitute policy judgments)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) (standards for rational-basis equal protection review)