Skip to content

The Department of Justice files a lawsuit against California’s new Federal land acquisition law

April 2, 2018

  According to this story the Department of Justice has filed another lawsuit against the State of California–this time against the state’s new law which took effect on January 1st which gave the state the right of first refusal for purchasing Federal land within the state. Here is more:

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against California over a state law giving it the power to override the sale of federal lands, the department announced Monday.

The suit marks the latest battle between President Trump and the nation’s most populous state, where Democrats have tried aggressively to thwart the president’s agenda. Last month, Sessions visited Sacramento to announce he was suing California over laws that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Under the law, which was passed in September, California has the first right to purchase federal lands or to arrange for a specific buyer. Lawmakers had expressed concerns that the Trump administration would allow more logging, oil drilling or development.

The Justice Department says California’s law, which took effect Jan. 1, is delaying land sales — even for projects that have been in the works for years — and is depressing their value. The auction of 1.7 acres owned by the U.S. Postal Service was suspended when nobody bid, and a developer looking to purchase property at the now-closed Naval Air Station Alameda has requested a delay, the lawsuit contends.

  Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2 has been interpreted to mean the Federal government has the authority to sell Federal land. Jeff Sessions is using this clause as justification for suing California, as well as the fact that when California was admitted into the Union it agreed not to interfere in the sale of Federal land:

“The Constitution empowers the federal government—not state legislatures—to decide when and how federal lands are sold,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “California was admitted to the Union upon the express condition that it would never interfere with the disposal of federal land. And yet, once again, the California legislature has enacted an extreme state law attempting to frustrate federal policy.”

  If this is true, and I am inclined to believe it is, than California cannot simply write a law overriding the conditions set when the state joined the union just because the state does not like who it thinks the Federal government is going to sell the land to.

  If the land was lawfully ceded to the Federal government it is their’s to do with what they want. I might believe the Federal government owns to much land but that is irrelevant to this case.

  This should be an open and shut case but we can never predict what the courts are going to do, especially since Donald Trump became President, so all bets are off.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium


9 Comments leave one →
  1. Dr. Jeff permalink
    April 2, 2018 8:47 pm

    Common sense has little to do with any of this. Even if Brown understands he has no chance in court, he also knows that he can draw out the legal action until Trump is out of office and he will have someone more pliable.

    Dirty politics at its’ worst, the public be damned.

    Liked by 2 people

    • April 3, 2018 5:29 am

      That’s right, slow walk it until Trump is gone but also draw attention to this and paint Trump as a tyrant.


  2. April 2, 2018 8:50 pm

    This is a new wrinkle. Yep, run it up through the 9th circuit… years later we will get an answer. Good catch Steve…

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Dr. Jeff permalink
    April 2, 2018 9:09 pm

    The language of the courts is sometimes mind boggling. Here is a 2 page memo from the California Attorney General amending one of their previous documents. Understand it if you can.

    Part of it claims that under the law, the California prohibition of “high capacity” magazines “… does not operate as a physical taking or as a regulatory taking.”

    Click to access Duncan_Citation-of-Supplemental-Authority-re-Wiese-v.-Becerra-No.-17-903_86-1.pdf

    What is a law requiring the disposal of legally acquired property, if it isn’t a regulatory taking?

    This case has been grinding through the courts since May of last year. Outside of the preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the ban, nothing has happened. There isn’t even a set date for the next hearing. btw – This is going through the 9th Circuit Court.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. April 2, 2018 11:38 pm

    I guess it’s time to split the state into two states.

    Liked by 1 person


  1. AW | The Department of Justice files a lawsuit against California’s new Federal land acquisition law | Brittius

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: