OCR Text |
Show action to refuse to accept the jurisdiction which automatically attached under the state statutes. As a result of acquisitions under the 1841 Act, the 1940 amendment, the status of public domain lands, and varied reservations by the states, there is now a hodgepodge of diverse shades of legislative jurisdiction over Federal lands. There have evolved four general categories of Federal jurisdiction: 1. Exclusive-the Federal Government possesses all of the authority of the state, the only reservation being the right of the state to serve criminal and civil process in the area for activities occurring outside the area; 2. Concurrent-the state grants to the Federal Government what would otherwise be exclusive jurisdiction, but reserves to itself the right to exercise concurrently the same powers; 3. Partial-the Federal Government has been granted the right to exercise certain of the state's authority, with the state reserving the right to exercise by itself, or concurrently, other authority beyond the mere right to serve process; 4. Proprietorial-the United States has acquired some right or title to an area within a state but no measure of the state's authority over the area. Where there has been piecemeal acquisition, more than one category of jurisdiction may be applicable in the same area. Two other provisions of the Constitution are germane to the power which the Federal Government may exercise over its lands, the "Property" and "Supremacy" clauses.6 While the Property Clause was originally thought to apply only to federally held lands outside the boundaries of any state, later judicial decisions leave no doubt that plenary authority is vested by this provision in Congress as to the protection, management, and disposition of Federal lands within the states. The Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties made under its authority are declared to be the supreme law of the land in the Supremacy Clause. Conflicting state law must yield to Federal law, and a state cannot interfere with an agency or instrumentality of the United States engaged in a lawfully authorized activity, without the consent of Congress. Congress, therefore, is authorized to pass laws with respect to the administration of the property of the United States, and no state may interfere with the exercise of that power by the United States. The only limitations on this authority are those contained in the Bill of Rights. A Jumbled Condition Difficulty in determining the precise jurisdictional status of an area is one problem occasioned by the mixture of legislative authority applicable to Federal lands. Frequently this has resulted in accommodations between state and Federal entities which ignore the legal niceties created by Federal jurisdiction. If, for example, Federal law enforcement is not available, state and local police may well lend a hand. The dangers of these extra-legal arrangements are apparent. Congress has provided a criminal code for Federal enclaves by adopting the laws of the host state for acts not otherwise punishable under Federal law.7 Periodic changes in the state criminal code are made applicable to the Federal enclave. No similar civil law has been enacted for these areas, however, and to fill the vacuum the courts have applied a rule of international law. Thereby the civil law, in force in each area when Federal jurisdiction attached to it, has become the law for the area. Subsequent changes made in the host state law are inapplicable and, as a result, much of the civil law governing Federal enclaves is obsolete and archaic. Furthermore, under this rule the civil law for areas within the same state may vary to a marked degree. An incident to the exercise of exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction may be the denial to residents of a Federal enclave of many of the rights and privileges to which they would otherwise be entitled except for their place of residence. It is settled, for example, that when a state chooses to do so, it may and does deny the right to vote to residents of a Federal enclave. Other important privileges may be denied, such as the right of children to attend local public schools, state supported welfare services, qualifications for access to the civil courts in domestic relations matters, and the right to be treated as residents of the state for such purposes as college scholarships or tuition, and hunting and fishing licenses. And, although arrangements for such services are often made, in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction there is no obligation of the state to provide such governmental services as sewage disposal, trash removal, fire protection, and the like. The jumbled condition of rights, privileges and obligations created by the confusion of jurisdiction over federally owned properties cannot be corrected under existing legislation. Limitation on Exclusive Jurisdiction Recommendation 129: Exclusive Federal legislative jurisdiction should be obtained, or 6 Art. IV, § 3; Art. VI. 278 • 18 U.S.C. § 13 (1964). s See, e.g., Herken v. Glynn, 151 Kan. 855, 101 P 2d 946 (1940). |