7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

FederalJurisdiction
IntheUnitedStates,therearetwoseparateanddistinctjurisdictions,suchbeingthejurisdictionofthe
Stateswithintheirownterritorialboundariesandtheotherbeingfederaljurisdiction.Broadlyspeaking,
statejurisdictionencompassesthelegislativepowertoregulate,controlandgovernrealandpersonal
property,individualsandenterpriseswithintheterritorialboundariesofanygivenState.Incontrast,
federaljurisdictionisextremelylimited,withthesamebeingexercisedonlyinareasexternaltostate
legislativepowerandterritory.Notwithstandingtheclarityofthissimpleprinciple,thelineofdemarcation
betweenthesetwojurisdictionsandtheextentandreachofeachhasbecomesomewhatblurred,dueto
popularmisconceptionsandtheeffortsexpendedbythefederalgovernmenttoconcealoneofitsmajor
weaknesses.Onlybyresortingtohistoryandcaselawcanthisobfuscationbeclarifiedandthetwo
distinctjurisdictionsbereadilyseen.
TheoriginalthirteencoloniesofAmericawereeachseparatelyestablishedbychartersfromtheEnglish
Crown.Outsideofthecommonbondofeachbeingadependencyandcolonyofthemothercountry,
England,thecolonieswerenototherwiseunited.Eachhaditsowngovernor,legislativeassemblyand
courts,andeachwasgovernedseparatelyandindependentlybytheEnglishParliament.
ThepoliticalconnectionsoftheseparatecoloniestotheEnglishCrownandParliamentdescendedtoan
unhappystateofaffairsasthedirectresultofParliamentaryactsadoptedinthelate1760'sandearly
1770's.Duetotherealandperceiveddangerscausedbythesevariousacts,theFirstContinental
CongresswasconvenedbyrepresentativesoftheseveralcoloniesinOctober,1774,thepurposeof
whichwastosubmitapetitionofgrievancestotheBritishParliamentandCrown.BytheDeclarationand
ResolvesoftheFirstContinentalCongress,datedOctober14,1774,thecolonialrepresentatives
labelledtheseParliamentaryactsofwhichtheycomplainedas"impolitic,unjust,andcruel,aswellas
unconstitutional,andmostdangerousanddestructiveofAmericanrights,"andthepurposeofwhich
weredesigns,schemesandplans"whichdemonstrateasystemformedtoenslaveAmerica."Revolution
wasassuredlyintheformativestagesabsentconciliationbetweenthemothercountryandcolonies.
BetweenOctober,1775,andthemiddleof1776,eachofthecoloniesseparatelyseveredtheirtiesand
relationswithEngland,andseveraladoptedconstitutionsforthenewlyformedStates.ByJuly,1776,the
exerciseofBritishauthorityinanyandallcolonieswasnotrecognizedinanydegree.Thecapstoneof
thisactualseparationofthecoloniesfromEnglandwasthemoreformalDeclarationofIndependence.
PROMOTEDSTORIES

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

1/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

ThelegaleffectoftheDeclarationofIndependencewastomakeeachnewStateaseparateand
independentsovereignoverwhichtherewasnoothergovernmentofsuperiorpowerorjurisdiction.This
wasclearlyshowninM'Ilvainev.Coxe'sLessee,8U.S.(4Cranch)209,212(1808),whereitwasheld:
"Thisopinionispredicateduponaprinciplewhichisbelievedtobeundeniable,thattheseveralstates
whichcomposedthisUnion,sofaratleastasregardedtheirmunicipalregulations,becameentitled,
fromthetimewhentheydeclaredthemselvesindependent,toalltherightsandpowersofsovereign
states,andthattheydidnotderivethemfromconcessionsmadebytheBritishking.Thetreatyof
peacecontainsarecognitionoftheirindependence,notagrantofit.Fromhenceitresults,thatthe
lawsoftheseveralstategovernmentswerethelawsofsovereignstates,andassuchwereobligatory
uponthepeopleofsuchstate,fromthetimetheywereenacted."
AndafurtherexpressionofsimilarimportisfoundinHarcourtv.Gaillard,25U.S.(12Wheat.)523,526,
527(1827),wheretheCourtstated:
"TherewasnoterritorywithintheUnitedStatesthatwasclaimedinanyotherrightthanthatofsome
oneoftheconfederatedstatestherefore,therecouldbenoacquisitionofterritorymadebythe
UnitedStatesdistinctfrom,orindependentofsomeoneofthestates.
"Eachdeclareditselfsovereignandindependent,accordingtothelimitsofitsterritory.
"[T]hesoilandsovereigntywithintheiracknowledgedlimitswereasmuchtheirsatthedeclarationof
independenceasatthishour."
Thus,unequivocally,inJuly,1776,thenewStatespossessedallsovereignty,power,andjurisdiction
overallthesoilandpersonsintheirrespectiveterritoriallimits.
ThisconditionofsupremesovereigntyofeachStateoverallpropertyandpersonswithintheborders
thereofcontinuednotwithstandingtheadoptionoftheArticlesofConfederation.InArticleIIofthat
document,itwasexpresslystated:

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

2/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

"ArticleII.Eachstateretainsitssovereignty,freedom,andindependence,andeveryPower,
Jurisdictionandright,whichisnotbythisconfederationexpresslydelegatedtotheUnitedStates,in
Congressassembled."
Asthehistoryoftheconfederationgovernmentdemonstrated,eachStatewasindeedsovereignand
independenttothedegreethatitmadethecentralgovernmentcreatedbytheconfederationfairly
ineffectual.Thesedefectsoftheconfederationgovernmentstrainedtherelationsbetweenandamong
theStatesandtheremedybecamethecallingofaconstitutionalconvention.
TherepresentativeswhichassembledinPhiladelphiainMay,1787,toattendtheConstitutional
ConventionmetfortheprimarypurposeofimprovingthecommercialrelationsamongtheStates,
althoughtheproductoftheConventionproducedmorethanthis.But,nointentionwasdemonstratedfor
theStatestosurrenderinanydegreethejurisdictionsopossessedbytheStatesatthattime,and
indeedtheConstitutionasfinallydraftedcontinuedthesameterritorialjurisdictionoftheStatesas
existedundertheArticlesofConfederation.Theessenceofthisretentionofstatejurisdictionwas
embodiedinArt.I,Sec.8,Cl.17oftheU.S.Constitution,whichreadasfollows:
"ToexerciseexclusiveLegislationinallCaseswhatsoever,oversuchDistrict(notexceedingtenMiles
square)asmay,byCessionofparticularStates,andtheAcceptanceofCongress,becometheSeat
oftheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates,andtoexerciselikeAuthorityoverallPlacespurchasedby
theConsentoftheLegislatureoftheStateinwhichtheSameshallbe,fortheErectionofForts,
Magazines,Arsenals,dockYards,andotherneedfulBuildings."
ThereasonfortheinclusionofthisclauseintheConstitutionwasandisobvious.UndertheArticlesof
Confederation,theStatesretainedfullandcompletejurisdictionoverlandsandpersonswithintheir
borders.TheCongressundertheArticleswasmerelyabodywhichrepresentedandactedasagentsof
theseparateStatesforexternalaffairs,andhadnojurisdictionwithintheStates.Thisdefectinthe
ArticlesmadetheConfederationCongresstotallydependentuponanygivenStateforprotection,and
thisdependencydidinfactcauseembarrassmentforthatCongress.DuringtheRevolutionaryWar,
whiletheCongressmetinPhiladelphia,abodyofmutineersfromtheContinentalArmysurroundedthe
Congressandchastisedandinsultedthemembersthereof.ThegovernmentsofbothPhiladelphiaand
Pennsylvaniaprovedthemselvespowerlesstoremedythesituation,andtheCongresswasforcedto
fleefirsttoPrinceton,NewJersey,andfinallytoAnnapolis,Maryland.Thus,thisclausewasinsertedinto
theConstitutiontogivejurisdictiontoCongressoveritscapital,andsuchotherplacesasCongress
mightpurchaseforforts,magazines,arsenals,andotherneedfulbuildingswhereintheStateceded
jurisdictionofsuchlandstothefederalgovernment.Otherthanintheseareas,thisclauseofthe
Constitutiondidnotoperatetocedefurtherjurisdictiontothefederalgovernment,andjurisdictionover
uncededareasremainedwithintheStates.
WhiletherehadbeennorealprovisionsintheArticleswhichpermittedtheConfederationCongressto
acquirepropertyandpossessexclusivejurisdictionoversuchproperty,theaboveclausefilledan
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

3/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

essentialneedbypermittingthefederalgovernmenttoacquirelandfortheseatofgovernmentand
otherpurposesfromcertainoftheStates.Suchpossessionsweredeemedessentialtoenablethe
UnitedStatestoperformthepowersconveyedbytheConstitution,andacessionoflandsbyany
particularStatewouldgrantexclusivejurisdictionofsuchlandstoCongress.Perhapsthemostcogent
reasonsandexplanationsforthisclauseintheConstitutionweresetforthinEssayNo.43ofThe
Federalist:
"Theindispensablenecessityofcompleteauthorityattheseatofgovernmentcarriesitsown
evidencewithit.ItisapowerexercisedbyeverylegislatureoftheUnion,Imightsayoftheworld,by
virtueofitsgeneralsupremacy.Withoutitnotonlythepublicauthoritymightbeinsultedandits
proceedingsinterruptedwithimpunity,butadependenceofthemembersofthegeneralgovernment
ontheStatecomprehendingtheseatofthegovernmentforprotectionintheexerciseoftheirduty
mightbringonthenationalcouncilsanimputationofaweorinfluenceequallydishonorabletothe
governmentanddissatisfactorytotheothermembersoftheConfederacy.Thisconsiderationhasthe
moreweightasthegradualaccumulationofpublicimprovementsatthestationaryresidenceofthe
governmentwouldbebothtoogreatapublicpledgetobeleftinthehandsofasingleState,and
wouldcreatesomanyobstaclestoaremovalofthegovernment,asstillfurthertoabridgeits
necessaryindependence.Theextentofthisfederaldistrictissufficientlycircumscribedtosatisfy
everyjealousyofanoppositenature.Andasitistobeappropriatedtothisusewiththeconsentof
theStatecedingitastheStatewillnodoubtprovideinthecompactfortherightsandtheconsentof
thecitizensinhabitingitastheinhabitantswillfindsufficientinducementsofinteresttobecomewilling
partiestothecessionastheywillhavehadtheirvoiceintheelectionofthegovernmentwhichisto
exerciseauthorityoverthemasamunicipallegislatureforlocalpurposes,derivedfromtheirown
suffrages,willofcoursebeallowedthemandastheauthorityofthelegislatureoftheState,andof
theinhabitantsofthecededpartofit,toconcurinthecessionwillbederivedfromthewholepeople
oftheStateintheiradoptionoftheConstitution,everyimaginableobjectionseemstobeobviated.
"Thenecessityofalikeauthorityoverforts,magazines,etc.,establishedbythegeneralgovernment,
isnotlessevident.Thepublicmoneyexpendedonsuchplaces,andthepublicpropertydepositedin
them,requirethattheyshouldbeexemptfromtheauthorityoftheparticularState.Norwoulditbe
properfortheplacesonwhichthesecurityoftheentireUnionmaydependtobeinanydegree
dependentonaparticularmemberofit.Allobjectionsandscruplesareherealsoobviatedby
requiringtheconcurrenceoftheStatesconcernedineverysuchestablishment."
SincethetimeoftheratificationandimplementationofthepresentU.S.Constitution,theU.S.Supreme
Courtandalllowercourtshavehadmanyopportunitiestoconstrueandapplytheaboveprovisionofthe
Constitution.AndtheessenceofallthesedecisionsisthattheStatesofthisnationhaveexclusive
jurisdictionofpropertyandpersonslocatedwithintheirborders,excludingsuchlandsandpersons
residingthereonwhichhavebeencededtotheUnitedStates.
PerhapsoneoftheearliestdecisionsonthispointwasUnitedStatesv.Bevans,16U.S.(3Wheat.)336
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

4/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

(1818),whichinvolvedafederalprosecutionforamurdercommittedonboardtheWarship,
Independence,anchoredintheharborofBoston,Massachusetts.Thedefensecomplainedthatonlythe
statehadjurisdictiontoprosecuteandarguedthatthefederalCircuitCourtshadnojurisdictionofthis
crimesupposedlycommittedwithinthefederalgovernment'sadmiraltyjurisdiction.Inargumentbefore
theSupremeCourt,counselfortheUnitedStatesadmittedasfollows:
"TheexclusivejurisdictionwhichtheUnitedStateshaveinfortsanddockyardscededtothem,is
derivedfromtheexpressassentofthestatesbywhomthecessionsaremade.Itcouldbederivedin
noothermannerbecausewithoutit,theauthorityofthestatewouldbesupremeandexclusive
therein,"3Wheat.,at350,351.
InholdingthattheStateofMassachusettshadjurisdictionoverthecrime,theCourtheld:
"What,then,istheextentofjurisdictionwhichastatepossesses?
"Weanswer,withouthesitation,thejurisdictionofastateiscoextensivewithitsterritorycoextensive
withitslegislativepower,"3Wheat.,at386,387.
"ThearticlewhichdescribesthejudicialpoweroftheUnitedStatesisnotintendedforthecessionof
territoryorofgeneraljurisdiction....Congresshaspowertoexerciseexclusivejurisdictionoverthis
district,andoverallplacespurchasedbytheconsentofthelegislatureofthestateinwhichthesame
shallbe,fortheerectionofforts,magazines,arsenals,dockyards,andotherneedfulbuildings.
"Itisobservablethatthepowerofexclusivelegislation(whichisjurisdiction)isunitedwithcessionof
territory,whichistobethefreeactofthestates.Itisdifficulttocomparethetwosectionstogether,
withoutfeelingaconviction,nottobestrengthenedbyanycommentaryonthem,that,indescribing
thejudicialpower,theframersofourconstitutionhadnotinviewanycessionofterritoryor,whichis
essentiallythesame,ofgeneraljurisdiction,"3Wheat.,at388.
ThusinBevans,theCourtestablishedaprinciplethatfederaljurisdictionextendsonlyovertheareas
whereinitpossessesthepowerofexclusivelegislation,andthisisaprincipleincorporatedintoall
subsequentdecisionsregardingtheextentoffederaljurisdiction.Toholdotherwisewoulddestroythe
purpose,intentandmeaningoftheentireU.S.Constitution.
ThedecisioninBevanswascloselyfollowedbydecisionsmadeintwostatecourtsandonefederalcourt
withinthenexttwoyears.InCommonwealthv.Young,Brightly,N.P.302,309(Pa.1818),theSupreme
CourtofPennsylvaniawaspresentedwiththeissueofwhetherlandsownedbytheUnitedStatesfor
whichPennsylvaniahadnevercededjurisdictionhadtobesoldpursuanttostatelaw.Indecidingthat
thestatelawofPennsylvaniaexclusivelycontrolledthissaleoffederalland,theCourtheld:
"Thelegislationandauthorityofcongressisconfinedtocessionsbyparticularstatesfortheseatof
government,andpurchasesmadebyconsentofthelegislatureofthestate,forthepurposeof
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

5/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

erectingforts.Thelegislativepowerandexclusivejurisdictionremainedintheseveralstates,ofall
territorywithintheirlimits,notcededto,orpurchasedby,congress,withtheassentofthestate
legislature,topreventthecollisionoflegislationandauthoritybetweentheUnitedStatesandthe
severalstates."
Ayearlater,theSupremeCourtofNewYorkwaspresentedwiththeissueofwhethertheStateofNew
YorkhadjurisdictionoveramurdercommittedatFortNiagara,afederalfort.InPeoplev.Godfrey,17
Johns.225,233(N.Y.1819),thatcourtheldthatthefortwassubjecttothejurisdictionoftheStatesince
thelandsthereforehadnotbeencededtotheUnitedStates.Therationaleofitsopinionstated:
"Tooustthisstateofitsjurisdictiontosupportandmaintainitslaws,andtopunishcrimes,itmustbe
shownthatanoffensecommittedwithintheacknowledgedlimitsofthestate,isclearlyandexclusively
cognizablebythelawsandcourtsoftheUnitedStates.Inthecasealreadycited,ChiefJustice
Marshallobserved,thattobringtheoffensewithinthejurisdictionofthecourtsoftheunion,itmust
havebeencommittedoutofthejurisdictionofanystateitisnot(hesays,)theoffencecommitted,but
theplaceinwhichitiscommitted,whichmustbeoutofthejurisdictionofthestate."
ThecaserelieduponbythiscourtwasU.S.v.Bevans,supra.
AtaboutthesametimethattheNewYorkSupremeCourtrendereditsopinioninGodfrey,asimilarfact
situationwasbeforeafederalcourt,theonlydifferencebeingthatthemurdercommittedinthecase
occurredonlandwhichhadbeencededtotheUnitedStates.InUnitedStatesv.Cornell,25Fed.Cas.
646,648No.14,867(C.C.D.R.I.1819),thecourtheldthatthecasefellwithinfederaljurisdiction,
describingsuchjurisdictionasfollows:
"ButalthoughtheUnitedStatesmaywellpurchaseandholdlandsforpublicpurposes,withinthe
territoriallimitsofastate,thisdoesnotofitselfoustthejurisdictionorsovereigntyofsuchStateover
thelandssopurchased.ItremainsuntiltheStatehasrelinquisheditsauthorityoverthelandeither
expresslyorbynecessaryimplication.
"Whenthereforeapurchaseoflandforanyofthesepurposesismadebythenationalgovernment,
andtheStateLegislaturehasgivenitsconsenttothepurchase,thelandsopurchasedbythevery
termsoftheconstitutionipsofactofallswithintheexclusivelegislationofCongress,andtheState
jurisdictioniscompletelyousted."
Almost18yearslater,theU.S.SupremeCourtwasagainpresentedwithacaseinvolvingthedistinction
betweenStateandfederaljurisdiction.InNewOrleansv.UnitedStates,35U.S.(10Pet.)662,737
(1836),theUnitedStatesclaimedtitletopropertyinNewOrleanslikewiseclaimedbythecity.After
holdingthattitletothesubjectlandswasownedbythecity,theCourtaddressedthequestionoffederal
jurisdictionandstated:
"SpecialprovisionismadeintheConstitutionforthecessionofjurisdictionfromtheStatesover
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

6/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

placeswherethefederalgovernmentshallestablishfortsorothermilitaryworks.Anditisonlyin
theseplaces,orintheterritoriesoftheUnitedStates,whereitcanexerciseageneraljurisdiction."
InNewYorkv.Miln,36U.S.(11Pet.)102(1837),thequestionbeforetheCourtinvolvedtheattemptby
theCityofNewYorktoassesspenaltiesagainstthemasterofashipforhisfailuretomakeareportas
tothepersonshisshipbroughttoNewYork.Asagainstthemaster'scontentionthattheactwas
unconstitutionalandthatNewYorkhadnojurisdictioninthematter,theCourtheld:
"Ifwelookattheplaceofitsoperation,wefindittobewithintheterritory,and,therefore,withinthe
jurisdictionofNewYork.Ifwelookatthepersononwhomitoperates,heisfoundwithinthesame
territoryandjurisdiction,"36U.S.,at133.
"Theyarethese:thataStatehasthesameundeniableandunlimitedjurisdictionoverallpersonsand
thingswithinitsterritoriallimits,asanyforeignnation,wherethatjurisdictionisnotsurrenderedor
restrainedbytheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.That,byvirtueofthis,itisnotonlytheright,but
theboundenandsolemndutyofaState,toadvancethesafety,happinessandprosperityofits
people,andtoprovideforitsgeneralwelfare,byanyandeveryactoflegislationwhichitmaydeem
tobeconducivetotheseendswherethepowerovertheparticularsubject,orthemannerofits
exerciseisnotsurrenderedorrestrained,inthemannerjuststated.Thatallthosepowerswhich
relatetomerelymunicipallegislation,orwhatmay,perhaps,moreproperlybecalledinternalpolice,
arenotthussurrenderedorrestrainedandthat,consequently,inrelationtothese,theauthorityofa
Stateiscomplete,unqualifiedandexclusive,"36U.S.,at139.
Someeightyearslater,inPollardv.Hagan,44U.S.(3How.)212(1845),thequestionoffederal
jurisdictionwasonceagainbeforetheCourt.Thiscaseinvolvedacontestofthetitletorealproperty,
withoneofthepartiesclaimingarighttothedisputedpropertyviaaU.S.patentthelandsinquestion
weresituatedinMobile,Alabama,adjacenttoMobileBay.Indiscussingthesubjectoffederal
jurisdiction,theCourtheld:
"WethinkaproperexaminationofthissubjectwillshowthattheUnitedStatesneverheldany
municipalsovereignty,jurisdiction,orrightofsoilinandtotheterritory,ofwhichAlabamaoranyof
thenewStateswereformed,"44U.S.,at221.
"[B]ecause,theUnitedStateshavenoconstitutionalcapacitytoexercisemunicipaljurisdiction,
sovereignty,oreminentdomain,withinthelimitsofaStateorelsewhere,exceptinthecasesinwhich
itisexpresslygranted,"44U.S.,at223.
"Alabamaisthereforeentitledtothesovereigntyandjurisdictionoveralltheterritorywithinherlimits,
subjecttothecommonlaw,"44U.S.,at228,229.
ThesinglemostimportantcaseregardingthesubjectoffederaljurisdictionappearstobeFort
LeavenworthR.Co.v.Lowe,114U.S.525,531,5S.Ct.995(1885),whichsetsforththelawonthis
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

7/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

pointfully.There,therailroadcompanypropertywhichpassedthroughtheFortLeavenworthfederal
enclavewasbeingsubjectedtotaxationbyKansas,andthecompanyclaimedanexemptionfromstate
taxation.Inholdingthattherailroadcompany'spropertycouldbetaxed,theCourtcarefullyexplained
federaljurisdictionwithintheStates:
"Theconsentofthestatestothepurchaseoflandswithinthemforthespecialpurposesnamed,is,
however,essential,undertheconstitution,tothetransfertothegeneralgovernment,withthetitle,of
politicaljurisdictionanddominion.Wherelandsareacquiredwithoutsuchconsent,thepossessionof
theUnitedStates,unlesspoliticaljurisdictionbecededtotheminsomeotherway,issimplythatofan
ordinaryproprietor.Thepropertyinthatcase,unlessusedasameanstocarryoutthepurposesof
thegovernment,issubjecttothelegislativeauthorityandcontrolofthestatesequallywiththe
propertyofprivateindividuals."
Thus,thecasesdecidedwithinthe19thcenturyclearlydisclosedtheextentandscopeofbothStateand
federaljurisdiction.Inessence,thesecases,amongmanyothers,holdthatthejurisdictionofany
particularStateiscoextensivewithitsbordersorterritory,andallpersonsandpropertylocatedorfound
thereinaresubjecttosuchjurisdictionthisjurisdictionissuperior.Federaljurisdictionresultsonlyfroma
conveyanceofstatejurisdictiontothefederalgovernmentforlandsownedorotherwisepossessedby
thefederalgovernment,andthusfederaljurisdictionisextremelylimitedinnature.Andthereisno
federaljurisdictioniftherebenograntorcessionofjurisdictionbytheStatetothefederalgovernment.
Therefore,federalterritorialjurisdictionexistsonlyinWashington,D.C.,thefederalenclaveswithinthe
States,andtheterritoriesandpossessionsoftheUnitedStates.
Theaboveprinciplesofjurisdictionestablishedinthelastcenturycontinuetheirvitalitytodaywithonly
oneminorexception.Inthelastcentury,thecessionsofjurisdictionbyStatestothefederalgovernment
werebylegislativeactswhichtypicallycededfulljurisdictiontothefederalgovernment,thusplacinginto
thehandsofthefederalgovernmentthetroublesomeproblemofdealingwithandgoverningscattered,
localizedfederalenclaveswhichhadbeentotallysurrenderedbytheStates.Withtheadventinthis
centuryoflargefederalworksprojectsandnationalparks,theproblemsregardingmanagementof
theseareasbythefederalgovernmentweremagnified.Duringthelastcentury,itwasthoughtthatifa
Statecededjurisdictiontothefederalgovernment,thecessiongrantedfullandcompletejurisdiction.
But,withtheeverincreasingnumberofseparatetractsoflandfallingwithinthejurisdictionofthefederal
governmentinthiscentury,itwasobviouslydeterminedbybothfederalandstatepublicofficersthatthe
Statesshouldretaingreatercontroloverthesecededlands,andthecourtshaveacknowledgedthe
constitutionalityofvaryingdegreesofstatejurisdictionandcontroloverlandssoceded.
PerhapsoneofthefirstcasestoacknowledgethepropositionthataStatecouldretainadegreeof
jurisdictionoverpropertycededtothefederalgovernmentwasSurplusTradingCo.v.Cook,281U.S.
647,50S.Ct.455(1930).Inthiscase,astateattempttoassessanadvaloremtaxonArmyblankets
locatedwithinafederalarmycampwasfoundinvalidandbeyondthestate'sjurisdiction.But,inregards
tothepropositionthataStatecouldmakeaqualifiedcessionofjurisdictiontothefederalgovernment,
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

8/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

theCourtheld:
"[T]hestateundoubtedlymaycedeherjurisdictiontotheUnitedStatesandmaymakethecession
eitherabsoluteorqualifiedastohermayappeardesirable,providedthequalificationisconsistent
withthepurposesforwhichthereservationismaintainedandisacceptedbytheUnitedStates.And,
wheresuchacessionismadeandaccepted,itwillbedeterminativeofthejurisdictionofboththe
UnitedStatesandthestatewithinthereservation,"281U.S.,at651,652.
Twocasesdecidedin1937bytheU.S.SupremeCourtfurtherclarifytheconstitutionalityofa
reservationofanydegreeofstatejurisdictionoverlandscededtothejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.In
Jamesv.DravoContractingCompany,302U.S.134,58S.Ct.208(1937),theStateofWestVirginia
soughttoimposeataxuponthegrossreceiptsofthecompanyarisingfromacontractwhichithad
madewiththeUnitedStatestobuildsomedamsonrivers.Oneoftheissuesinvolvedinthiscasewas
thevalidityofthestatetaximposedonthereceiptsderivedbythecompanyfromworkperformedon
landstowhichtheStatehadceded"concurrent"jurisdictiontotheUnitedStates.IntheCourt'sopinion,
itheldthataStatecouldreserveandqualifyanycessionofjurisdictionforlandsownedbytheUnited
StatessincetheStatehaddonesohere,theCourtupheldthispartofthechallengedtax
notwithstandingapartialcessionofjurisdictiontotheU.S.AsimilarresultoccurredinSilasMasonCo.v.
TaxCommissionofStateofWashington,302U.S.186,58S.Ct.233(1937).Here,theUnitedStateswas
undertakingtheconstructionofseveraldamsontheColumbiaRiverinWashington,andhadpurchased
thelandsnecessaryfortheproject.SilasMasonobtainedacontracttobuildapartoftheGrandCoulee
Dam,butfiledsuitchallengingtheWashingtonincometaxwhenthatStatesoughttoimposesuchtaxon
thecontractproceeds.Mason'sargumentthatthefederalgovernmenthadexclusivejurisdictionover
boththelandsandsuchcontractwasnotupheldbyeithertheSupremeCourtofWashingtonortheU.S.
SupremeCourt.ThelatterCourtheldthatnoneofthelandsownedbytheU.S.werewithinits
jurisdictionandthusWashingtonclearlyhadjurisdictiontoimposethechallengedtaxseealsoWilsonv.
Cook,327U.S.474,66S.Ct.663(1946).
Somefewyearslaterin1943,theSupremeCourtwasagainpresentedwithsimilartaxationand
jurisdictionissuesthefactsinthesetwocaseswereidenticalwiththeexceptionthatoneclearlyinvolved
landscededtothejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates.Thissingledifferencecauseddirectlyopposite
resultsinbothcases.InPacificCoastDairyv.DepartmentofAgricultureofCalifornia,318U.S.285,63
S.Ct.628(1943),thequestioninvolvedtheapplicabilityofstatelawtoacontractenteredintoand
performedonafederalenclavetowhichjurisdictionhadbeencededtotheUnitedStates.DuringWorld
WarII,Californiapassedalawsettingaminimumpriceforthesaleofmilk,whichlawimposedpenalties
forsalesmadebelowtheregulatedprice.Here,PacificCoastDairyconsummatedacontractonMoffett
Field,afederalenclavewithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,tosellmilktosuchfederal
facilityatbelowtheregulatedprice.Whenthisoccurred,Californiasoughttoimposeapenaltyforwhatit
perceivedasaviolationofstatelaw.But,theU.S.SupremeCourtrefusedtopermittheenforcementof
theCalifornialaw,holdingthatthecontractwasmadeandperformedinaterritoryoutsidethe
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

9/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

jurisdictionofCaliforniaandwithinthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,aplacewherethislawdidn't
apply.Thus,inthiscase,theexistenceoffederaljurisdictionwasthefoundationfortheruling.However,
inPennDairiesv.MilkControlCommissionofPennsylvania,318U.S.261,63S.Ct.617(1943),an
oppositeresultwasreachedonalmostidenticalfacts.Here,Pennsylvanialikewisehadalawwhich
regulatedthepriceofmilkandpenalizedsalesofmilkbelowtheregulatedprice.DuringWorldWarII,
theUnitedStatesleasedsomelandfromPennsylvaniafortheconstructionofamilitarycampsincethe
landwasleased,PennsylvaniadidnotcedejurisdictiontotheUnitedStates.WhenPennDairiessold
milktothemilitaryfacilityforapricebelowtheregulatedprice,theCommissionsoughttoimposethe
penalty.Inthiscase,sincetherewasnofederaljurisdiction,theSupremeCourtfoundthatthestatelaw
appliedandpermittedtheimpositionofthepenalty.Thus,thesetwocasesclearlyshowthedifferent
resultswhichcanoccurwiththepresenceorabsenceoffederaljurisdiction.
Afinalpointwhichmustbemaderegardingfederaljurisdictioninvolvesthepointastowhensuch
jurisdictionendsorceases.ThispointwasconsideredinS.R.A.v.Minnesota,327U.S.558,66S.Ct.
749(1946),whichinvolvedthepowerofaStatetotaxtherealpropertyinterestofapurchaserofland
soldbytheUnitedStates.Here,afederalpostofficebuildingwassoldtoS.R.A.pursuanttoareal
estatessalecontract,whichprovidedthattitlewouldpassonlyafterthepurchasepricehadbeenpaid.
InrefutingtheargumentofS.R.A.thattheadvaloremtaxonitsequitableinterestinthepropertywas
reallyanunlawfultaxonU.S.property,theCourtheld:
"Intheabsenceofsomesuchprovisions,atransferofpropertyheldbytheUnitedStatesunderstate
cessionspursuanttoArticleI,Section8,Clause17,oftheConstitutionwouldleavenumerous
isolatedislandsoffederaljurisdiction,unlesstheunrestrictedtransferofthepropertytoprivatehands
isthoughtwithoutmoretorevestsovereigntyinthestates.AsthepurposeofClause17wastogive
controloverthesitesofgovernmentaloperationstotheUnitedStates,whensuchcontrolwas
deemedessentialforfederalactivities,itwouldseemthatthesovereigntyoftheUnitedStateswould
endwiththereasonforitsexistenceandthedispositionoftheproperty.Weshalltreatthiscaseas
thoughtheGovernment'sunrestrictedtransferofpropertytononfederalhandsisarelinquishmentof
theexclusivelegislativepower,"327U.S.,at563,564.
Thus,itappearsclearlythatonceanypropertywithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesisno
longerutilizedbythatgovernmentforgovernmentalpurposes,andthetitleoranyinterestthereinis
conveyedtoprivateinterests,thejurisdictionofthefederalgovernmentceasesandjurisdictiononce
againrevertstotheState.
TheaboveprinciplesregardingthedistinctionbetweenStateandfederaljurisdictioncontinuethrough
todayseePaulv.UnitedStates,371U.S.245,83S.Ct.426(1963),andUnitedStatesv.StateTax
CommissionofMississippi,412U.S.363,93S.Ct.2183(1973).Andwhatwasdefinitelydecidedinthe
beginningdaysofthisRepublicregardingtheextent,scope,andreachofeachofthesetwodistinct
jurisdictionsremainsunchangedandformsthefoundationandbasisforthesmoothworkingsofstate
governmentalsystemsinconjunctionwiththefederalgovernment.Withoutsuchjurisdictionalprinciples
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

10/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

whichformaclearboundarybetweenthejurisdictionoftheStatesandtheUnitedStates,ourfederal
governmentalsystemwouldhavesurelymetitsdemiselongbeforenow.
Insummary,jurisdictionoftheStatesisessentiallythesameasthatpossessedbytheStateswhichwere
leaguedtogetherundertheArticlesofConfederation.TheconfederatedStatespossessedabsolute,
completeandfulljurisdictionoverpropertyandpersonslocatedwithintheirborders.Itishypocriticalto
assumeorarguethattheseStates,whichhadabsolvedandbanishedthecentralizedpowerand
jurisdictionoftheEnglishParliamentandCrownoverthembytheDeclarationofIndependence,would
shortlythereaftercedecomparablepowerandjurisdictiontotheConfederationCongress.Theydidnot
andtheycloselyandjealouslyguardedtheirownrights,powersandjurisdiction.WhentheArticleswere
replacedbytheConstitution,theintentandpurposeoftheStateswastoretaintheirsamepowersand
jurisdiction,withasmallconcessionofjurisdictiontotheUnitedStatesforlandsfoundessentialforthe
operationofthatgovernment.However,eventhisprovisiondidnotoperatetoinstantlychangeany
aspectofstatejurisdiction,itonlypermitteditsfutureoperationwhereinanyState,byitsownvolition,
shouldchoosetocedejurisdictiontotheUnitedStates.
BytheadoptionoftheConstitution,theStatesjointlysurrenderedsome17specificandwelldefined
powerstothefederalCongress,whichrelatedstrictlytoexternalaffairsoftheStates.Anysinglepower,
orevenseveralpowerscombined,donotoperateinafashionastoinvadeordivestaStateofits
jurisdiction.AsagainstasingleState,theremainderoftheStatesundertheConstitutionhavenorightto
jurisdictionwithinthesingleStateabsentitsconsent.
TheonlyprovisionintheConstitutionwhichpermitsjurisdictiontobevestedintheUnitedStatesisfound
inArt.I,Sec.8,Cl.17,whichprovidesthemechanismforavoluntarycessionofjurisdictionfromany
StatetotheUnitedStates.WhentheConstitutionwasadopted,theUnitedStateshadjurisdictionover
nolandswithintheStates,possessingjurisdictiononlyinthelandsencompassedintheNorthwest
Territories.Shortlythereafter,MarylandandVirginiacededjurisdictiontotheUnitedStatesfor
Washington,D.C.Astimeprogressedthereafter,theStatesatvarioustimescededjurisdictiontofederal
enclaveswithintheStates.Today,theterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesisfoundonlyinsuch
cededareas,whichencompassWashington,D.C.,thefederalenclaveswithintheStates,andsuch
territoriesandpossessionswhichmaybenowownedbytheUnitedStates.
Theaboveconclusionisnotthemereopinionoftheauthorofthisbrief,butitislikewisethatofthe
federalgovernmentitself.InJune1957,thegovernmentoftheUnitedStatespublishedaworkentitled
JurisdictionOverFederalAreasWithinTheStates:ReportoftheInterdepartmentalCommitteeforthe
StudyofJurisdictionOverFederalAreasWithintheStates,PartII,whichreportisthedefinitivestudyon
thisissue.Therein,theCommitteestated:
"TheConstitutiongivesexpressrecognitiontobutonemeansofFederalacquisitionoflegislative
jurisdictionbyStateconsentunderArticleI,section8,clause17....JusticeMcLeansuggestedthat
theConstitutionprovidedthesolemodefortransferofjurisdiction,andthatifthismodeisnot
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

11/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

pursued,notransferofjurisdictioncantakeplace,"Id.,at41.
"Itscarcelyneedstobesaidthatunlesstherehasbeenatransferofjurisdiction(1)pursuantto
clause17byaFederalacquisitionoflandwithStateconsent,or(2)bycessionfromtheStatetothe
FederalGovernment,orunlesstheFederalGovernmenthasreservedjurisdictionuponthe
admissionoftheState,theFederalGovernmentpossessesnolegislativejurisdictionoveranyarea
withinaState,suchjurisdictionbeingforexercisebytheState,subjecttononinterferencebythe
StatewithFederalfunctions,"Id.,at45.
"TheFederalGovernmentcannot,byunilateralactiononitspart,acquirelegislativejurisdictionover
anyareawithintheexteriorboundariesofaState,"Id.,at46.
"Ontheotherhand,whiletheFederalGovernmenthaspowerundervariousprovisionsofthe
Constitutiontodefine,andprohibitascriminal,certainactsoromissionsoccurringanywhereinthe
UnitedStates,ithasnopowertopunishforvariousothercrimes,jurisdictionoverwhichisretainedby
theStatesunderourFederalStatesystemofgovernment,unlesssuchcrimeoccursonareasasto
whichlegislativejurisdictionhasbeenvestedintheFederalGovernment,"Id.,at107.
Thus,fromanabundanceofcaselaw,buttressedbythislengthyanddefinitivegovernmenttreatiseon
thisissue,the"jurisdictionoftheUnitedStates"iscarefullycircumscribedanddefinedasaveryprecise
portionofAmerica.TheUnitedStatesisoneofthe51jurisdictionsexistingonthiscontinent,excluding
Canadaanditsprovinces.

FEDERALCRIMINALJURISDICTION
Itisawellestablishedprincipleoflawthatallfederal"legislationappliesonlywithintheterritorial
jurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesunlessacontraryintentappears"seeCahav.UnitedStates,152U.S.
211,215,14S.Ct.513(1894)AmericanBananaCompanyv.UnitedFruitCompany,213U.S.347,357,
29S.Ct.511(1909)UnitedStatesv.Bowman,260U.S.94,97,98,43S.Ct.39(1922)Blackmerv.
UnitedStates,284U.S.421,437,52S.Ct.252(1932)FoleyBros.v.Filardo,336U.S.281,285,69
S.Ct.575(1949)UnitedStatesv.Spelar,338U.S.217,222,70S.Ct.10(1949)andUnitedStatesv.
FirstNationalCityBank,321F.2d14,23(2ndCir.1963).Andthisprincipleoflawisexpressedina
numberofcasesfromthefederalappellatecourtsseeMcKeelv.IslamicRepublicofIran,722F.2d582,
589(9thCir.1983)(holdingtheForeignSovereignImmunitiesActasterritorial)Meredithv.United
States,330F.2d9,11(9thCir.1964)(holdingtheFederalTortsClaimsActasterritorial)UnitedStates
v.Cotroni,527F.2d708,711(2ndCir.1975)(holdingfederalwiretaplawsasterritorial)Stowev.Devoy,
588F.2d336,341(2ndCir.1978)Clearyv.UnitedStatesLines,Inc.,728F.2d607,609(3rdCir.1984)
(holdingfederalagediscriminationlawsasterritorial)Thomasv.Brown&Root,Inc.,745F.2d279,281
(4thCir.1984)(holdingsameasCleary,supra)UnitedStatesv.Mitchell,553F.2d996,1002(5thCir.
1977)(holdingmarinemammalsprotectionactasterritorial)Pfeifferv.WilliamWrigley,Jr.,Co.,755
F.2d554,557(7thCir.1985)(holdingagediscriminationlawsasterritorial)AirlineStewards&
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

12/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

StewardessesAssn.v.NorthwestAirlines,Inc.,267F.2d170,175(8thCir.1959)(holdingRailwayLabor
Actasterritorial)Zahourekv.ArthurYoungandCo.,750F.2d827,829(10thCir.1984)(holdingage
discriminationlawsasterritorial)CommoditiesFuturesTradingComm.v.Nahas,738F.2d487,493
(D.C.Cir.1984)(holdingcommission'ssubpoenapowerunderfederallawasterritorial)Reyesv.
SecretaryofH.E.W.,476F.2d910,915(D.C.Cir.1973)(holdingadministrationofSocialSecurityActas
territorial)andSchoenbaumv.Firstbrook,268F.Supp.385,392(S.D.N.Y.1967)(holdingsecuritiesact
asterritorial).ThiswasperhapsstatedbestinCahav.UnitedStates,152U.S.,at215,wherethe
SupremeCourtstatedasfollows:
"ThelawsofCongressinrespecttothosemattersdonotextendintotheterritoriallimitsofthestates,
buthaveforceonlyintheDistrictofColumbia,andotherplacesthatarewithintheexclusive
jurisdictionofthenationalgovernment."
But,becauseofstatutorylanguage,certainfederaldruglawsoperateextraterritoriallyseeUnited
Statesv.King,552F.2d833,851(9thCir.1976).TheUnitedStateshasterritorialjurisdictiononlyin
Washington,D.C.,thefederalenclaveswithintheStates,andintheterritoriesandinsularpossessions
oftheUnitedStates.However,ithasnoterritorialjurisdictionovernonfederallyownedareasinsidethe
territorialjurisdictionoftheStateswithintheAmericanUnion.Andthispropositionoflawissupportedby
literallyhundredsofcases.
Asageneralrule,thepoweroftheUnitedStatestocriminallyprosecuteis,forthemostpart,confinedto
offensescommittedwithin"itsjurisdiction".ThisisbornoutsimplybyexaminationofTitle18,U.S.C.
Section5thereofdefinestheterm"UnitedStates"inclearjurisdictionalterms.Section7containsthe
fulleststatutorydefinitionofthe"jurisdictionoftheUnitedStates."TheU.S.DistrictCourtshave
jurisdictionofoffensesoccurringwithinthe"UnitedStates"pursuanttoTitle18,U.S.C.,Sec.3231.
Examplesofthispropositionarenumerous.InPothierv.Rodman,291F.311(1stCir.1923),the
questioninvolvedwhetheramurdercommittedatCampLewisMilitaryReservationintheStateof
Washingtonwasafederalcrime.Here,themurderwascommittedmorethanayearbeforetheU.S.
acquiredadeedforthepropertyinquestion.PothierwasarrestedandincarceratedinRhodeIslandand
filedahabeascorpuspetitionseekinghisreleaseonthegroundsthatthefederalcourtshadno
jurisdictionoveranoffensenotcommittedinU.S.jurisdiction.TheFirstCircuitagreedthattherewasno
federaljurisdictionandorderedhisrelease.But,onappealtotheU.S.SupremeCourt,inRodmanv.
Pothier,264U.S.399,44S.Ct.360(1924),thatCourtreversedalthoughagreeingwiththejurisdictional
principlesenunciatedbytheFirstCircuit,itheldthatonlythefederalcourtinWashingtonStatecould
hearthatissue.InUnitedStatesv.Unzeuta,35F.2d750(8thCir.1929),theEighthCircuitheldthatthe
U.S.hadnojurisdictionoveramurdercommittedinarailroadcaratFortRobinson,thestatecession
statutebeingconstruedasnotincludingrailroadrightsofway.ThisdecisionwasreversedinUnited
Statesv.Unzeuta,281U.S.138,50S.Ct.284(1930),thecourtholdingthattheU.S.didhavejurisdiction
overtherailroadrightsofwayinFortRobinson.InBowenv.Johnson,97F.2d860(9thCir.1938),the
questionpresentedwaswhetherjurisdictionoveranoffenseprosecutedinfederalcourtcouldberaised
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

13/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

inapetitionforhabeascorpus.ThedenialofBowen'spetitionwasreversedinBowenv.Johnston,306
U.S.19,59S.Ct.442(1939),theCourtconcludingthatsuchajurisdictionalchallengecouldberaisedin
ahabeascorpuspetition.But,theCourtthenaddressedtheissue,foundthattheU.S.bothownedthe
propertyinquestionandhadastatelegislativegrantcedingjurisdictiontotheUnitedStates,thusthere
wasjurisdictionintheUnitedStatestoprosecuteBowen.But,ifjurisdictionisnotvestedintheUnited
Statespursuanttostatute,thereisnojurisdictionseeAdamsv.UnitedStates,319U.S.312,63S.Ct.
1122(1943).
Andthelowerfederalcourtsalsorequirethepresenceoffederaljurisdictionincriminalprosecutions.In
Kellyv.UnitedStates,27F.616(D.Me.1885),federaljurisdictionofamanslaughtercommittedatFort
PophamwasupheldwhenitwasshownthattheU.S.ownedthepropertywheretheoffenseoccurred
andthestatehadcededjurisdiction.InUnitedStatesv.Andem,158F.996(D.N.J.1908),federal
jurisdictionforaforgeryoffensewasupheldonashowingthattheUnitedStatesownedtheproperty
wheretheoffensewascommittedandthestatehadcededjurisdictionofthepropertytotheU.S.In
UnitedStatesv.Penn,48F.669(E.D.Va.1880),sincetheU.S.didnothavejurisdictionoverArlington
NationalCemetery,afederallarcenyprosecutionwasdismissed.InUnitedStatesv.Lovely,319F.2d
673(4thCir.1963),federaljurisdictionwasfoundtoexistbyU.S.ownershipofthepropertyandastate
cessionofjurisdiction.InUnitedStatesv.Watson,80F.Supp.649,651(E.D.Va.1948),federalcriminal
chargesweredismissed,thecourtstatingasfollows:
"WithoutproofoftherequisiteownershiporpossessionoftheUnitedStates,thecrimehasnotbeen
madeout."
InBrownv.UnitedStates,257F.46(5thCir.1919),federaljurisdictionwasupheldonthebasisthatthe
U.S.ownedthepostofficesitewhereamurderwascommittedandthestatehadcededjurisdictionsee
alsoEnglandv.UnitedStates,174F.2d466(5thCir.1949)Krullv.UnitedStates,240F.2d122(5thCir.
1957)Hudspethv.UnitedStates,223F.2d848(5thCir.1955)andGaineyv.UnitedStates,324F.2d
731(5thCir.1963).InUnitedStatesv.Townsend,474F.2d209(5thCir.1973),aconvictionfor
receivingstolenpropertywasreversedwhenthecourtreviewedtherecordandlearnedthattherewas
absolutelynoevidencedisclosingthatthedefendanthadcommittedthisoffensewithinthejurisdictionof
theUnitedStates.AndinUnitedStatesv.Benson,495F.2d475,481(5thCir.1974),infindingfederal
jurisdictionforarobberycommittedatFortRucker,thecourtstated:
"Itisaxiomaticthattheprosecutionmustalwaysproveterritorialjurisdictionoveracrimeinorderto
sustainaconvictiontherefor."
IntwoSixthCircuitcases,UnitedStatesv.Tucker,122F.518(W.D.Ky.1903),acaseinvolvingan
assaultcommittedatafederaldam,andUnitedStatesv.Blunt,558F.2d1245(6thCir.1977),acase
involvinganassaultwithinafederalpenitentiary,jurisdictionwassustainedbyfindingthattheU.S.
ownedthepropertyinquestionandthestateinvolvedhadcededjurisdiction.InInreKelly,71F.545
(E.D.Wis.1895),afederalassaultchargewasdismissedwhenthecourtheldthatthestatecession
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

14/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

statuteinquestionwasnotadequatetoconveyjurisdictionofthepropertyinquestiontotheUnited
States.InUnitedStatesv.Johnson,426F.2d1112(7thCir.1970),acaseinvolvingafederalburglary
prosecution,federaljurisdictionwassustainedupontheshowingofU.S.ownershipandcession.And
casesfromtheEighthandTenthCircuitslikewiserequirethesameelementstobeshownto
demonstratethepresenceoffederaljurisdictionseeUnitedStatesv.Heard,270F.Supp.198(W.D.Mo.
1967)UnitedStatesv.Redstone,488F.2d300(8thCir.1973)UnitedStatesv.Goings,504F.2d809
(8thCir.1974)(demonstratinglossofjurisdiction)Hayesv.UnitedStates,367F.2d216(10thCir.
1966)UnitedStatesv.Carter,430F.2d1278(10thCir.1970)Hallv.UnitedStates,404F.2d1367
(10thCir.1969)andUnitedStatesv.Cassidy,571F.2d534(10thCir.1978).
Ofallthecircuits,theNinthCircuithasaddressedjurisdictionalissuesmorethananyoftherest.In
UnitedStatesv.Bateman,34F.86(N.D.Cal.1888),itwasdeterminedthattheUnitedStatesdidnot
havejurisdictiontoprosecuteforamurdercommittedatthePresidiobecauseCaliforniahadnever
cededjurisdictionseealsoUnitedStatesv.Tully,140F.899(D.Mon.1905).Butlater,Californiaceded
jurisdictionforthePresidiototheUnitedStates,anditwasheldinUnitedStatesv.Watkins,22F.2d437
(N.D.Cal.1927),thatthisenabledtheU.S.tomaintainamurderprosecutionseealsoUnitedStatesv.
Holt,168F.141(W.D.Wash.1909),UnitedStatesv.Lewis,253F.469(S.D.Cal.1918),andUnited
Statesv.Wurtzbarger,276F.753(D.Or.1921).BecausetheU.S.ownedandhadastatecessionof
jurisdictionforFortDouglasinUtah,itwasheldthattheU.S.hadjurisdictionforarapeprosecutionin
Rogersv.Squier,157F.2d948(9thCir.1946).But,withoutacession,theU.S.hasnojurisdictionsee
Arizonav.Manypenny,445F.Supp.1123(D.Ariz.1977).
TheabovecasesfromtheU.S.SupremeCourtandfederalappellatecourtssetforththerulethatin
criminalprosecutions,thegovernment,asthepartyseekingtoestablishtheexistenceoffederal
jurisdiction,mustproveU.S.ownershipofthepropertyinquestionandastatecessionofjurisdiction.
Thissamerulemanifestsitselfinstatecases.Statecourtsarecourtsofgeneraljurisdictionandina
statecriminalprosecution,thestatemustonlyprovethattheoffensewascommittedwithinthestateand
acountythereof.Ifadefendantcontendsthatonlythefederalgovernmenthasjurisdictionoverthe
offense,he,asproponentfortheexistenceoffederaljurisdiction,mustlikewiseproveU.S.ownershipof
thepropertywherethecrimewascommittedandstatecessionofjurisdiction.
Examplesoftheoperationofthisprinciplearenumerous.InArizona,theStatehasjurisdictionover
federallandsinthepublicdomain,thestatenothavingcededjurisdictionofthatpropertytotheU.S.
seeStatev.Dykes,114Ariz.592,562P.2d1090(1977).InCalifornia,ifitisnotprovedbyadefendant
inastateprosecutionthatthestatehascededjurisdiction,itispresumedthestatedoeshavejurisdiction
overacriminaloffenseseePeoplev.Brown,69Cal.App.2d602,159P.2d686(1945).Ifthecession
exists,thestatehasnojurisdictionseePeoplev.Mouse,203Cal.782,265P.944(1928).InMontana,
thestatehasjurisdictionoverpropertyifitisnotprovedthereisastatecessionofjurisdictiontothe
U.S.seeStateexrelParkerv.DistrictCourt,147Mon.151,410P.2d459(1966)theexistenceofa
statecessionofjurisdictiontotheU.S.ouststhestateofjurisdictionseeStatev.Tully,31Mont.365,78
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

15/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

P.760(1904).ThesameappliesinNevadaseeStatev.Mack,23Nev.359,47P.763(1897),and
Pendletonv.State,734P.2d693(Nev.,1987)itappliesinOregon(seeStatev.ChinPing,91Or.593,
176P.188(1918)andStatev.Aguilar,85Or.App.410,736P.2d620(1987))andinWashington(see
Statev.Williams,23Wash.App.694,598P.2d731(1979)).
InPeoplev.Hammond,1Ill.2d65,115N.E.2d331(1953),aburglaryofanI.R.S.officewasheldtobe
withinstatejurisdiction,thecourtholdingthatthedefendantwasrequiredtoproveexistenceoffederal
jurisdictionbyU.S.ownershipofthepropertyandstatecessionofjurisdiction.Intwocasesfrom
Michigan,larceniescommittedatU.S.postofficeswhichwererentedwereheldtobewithinstate
jurisdictionseePeoplev.Burke,161Mich.397,126N.W.446(1910)andPeoplev.VanDyke,276
Mich.32,267N.W.778(1936)seealsoInreKelly,311Mich.596,19N.W.2d218(1945).InKansas
Cityv.Garner,430S.W.2d630(Mo.App.1968),statejurisdictionoveratheftoffenseoccurringina
federalbuildingwasupheld,andthecourtstatedthatadefendanthadtoshowfederaljurisdictionby
provingU.S.ownershipofthebuildingandacessionofjurisdictionfromthestatetotheUnitedStates.A
similarholdingwasmadeforatheftataU.S.missilesiteinStatev.Rindall,146Mon.64,404P.2d327
(1965).InPendletonv.State,734P.2d693(Nev.1987),thestatecourtwasheldtohavejurisdiction
overaD.U.I.committedonfederallands,thedefendanthavingfailedtoshowU.S.ownershipandstate
cessionofjurisdiction.
InPeoplev.Gerald,40Misc.2d819,243N.Y.S.2d1001(1963),thestatewasheldtohavejurisdictionof
anassaultataU.S.postofficesincethedefendantdidnotmeethisburdenofshowingpresenceof
federaljurisdictionandbecauseadefendantfailedtoprovetitleandjurisdictionintheUnitedStatesfor
anoffensecommittedatacustomsstation,statejurisdictionwasupheldinPeoplev.Fisher,97A.D.2d
651,469N.Y.S.2d187(A.D.3Dept.1983).Thepropermethodofshowingfederaljurisdictioninstate
courtisdemonstratedbythedecisioninPeoplev.Williams,136Misc.2d294,518N.Y.S.2d751(1987).
ThisrulewaslikewiseenunciatedinStatev.Burger,33OhioApp.3d231,515N.E.2d640(1986),ina
caseinvolvingaD.U.I.offensecommittedonaroadnearafederalarsenal.
InKuerschnerv.State,493P.2d1402(Okl.Cr.App.1972),thestatewasheldtohavejurisdictionofa
drugsalesoffenseoccurringatanAirForceBase,thedefendantnothavingattemptedtoprovefederal
jurisdictionbyshowingtitleandjurisdictionofthepropertyinquestionintheUnitedStatesseealso
Towryv.State,540P.2d597(Okl.Cr.App.1975).SimilarholdingsformurderscommittedatU.S.post
officesweremadeinStatev.ChinPing,91Or.593,176P.188(1918),andinUnitedStatesv.Pate,393
F.2d44(7thCir.,1968).AnotherOregoncase,Statev.Aguilar,85Or.App.410,736P.2d620(1987),
demonstratesthisrule.Andfinally,inCurryv.State,111Tex.Cr.264,12S.W.2d796(1928),itwasheld
that,intheabsenceofproofthatthestatehadcededjurisdictionofaplacetotheUnitedStates,the
statecourtshadjurisdictionoveranoffense.
LowellH.Becraft,Jr.
209LincolnStreet
Huntsville,Alabama3580
http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

16/17

7/13/2016

FederalJurisdiction

FROMAROUNDTHEWEB

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

17/17