DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ATTACHMENTS I. UOCAVA Enforcement Activity by the Attorney General in 2017 A. Litigation to Defend the Constitutionality of UOCAVA Segovia v. United States Case: 16-4240 Document: 54 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pages: 66 NO. 16-4240 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT LUIS SEGOVIA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:15-cv-10196 (Hon. Joan B. Gottschall, J.) CORRECTED BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL APPELLEES CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General JOEL R. LEVIN Acting United States Attorney MICHAEL S. RAAB CARLEEN M. ZUBRZYCKI Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7260 U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-3388 Case: 16-4240 Document: 54 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pages: 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ............................................................................... 2 PERTINENT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS............................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 3 A. Legal Background ............................................................................... 4 1. Constitutional Provisions Regarding Federal Elections ..................................................................................... 4 2. The U.S. Territories and CNMI .............................................. 6 B. The Federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and Illinois MOVE .................. 9 C. Prior Proceedings ............................................................................. 12 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................... 21 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 21 I. Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge UOCAVA ................................. 21 II. UOCAVA’s Definition Of The United States Comports With Equal Protection Principles ............................................................. 23 Case: 16-4240 Document: 54 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pages: 66 A. The District Court Properly Applied Rational-Basis Review ................................................................................................ 24 1. UOCAVA Does Not Burden A Fundamental Right ........ 25 2. UOCAVA Does Not Discriminate Against A Protected Class ....................................................................... 30 B. UOCAVA’s Definition Of The Territorial United States Serves Rational Government Interests .......................................... 32 III. UOCAVA Does Not Infringe On Any Right To Travel ........................ 39 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 43 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM Case: 16-4240 Document: 54 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pages: 66 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page(s) Califano v. Gautier Torres, 435 U.S. 1 (1978) .......................................................................................... 31, 41 DH2, Inc. v. SEC, 422 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................23 Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) ...................................................................................... 26, 27 Eche v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................38 Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970) .............................................................................................27 Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects & Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976) .............................................................................................24 Griffin v. Roupas, 385 F.3d 1128 (7th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................28 Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. 651 (1980) ...................................................................................... 25, 31 Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978) ...............................................................................................26 Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................5, 26 Johnson v. Daley, 339 F.3d 582 (XX Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................24 Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966) ...................................................................................... 14, 29 Case: 16-4240 Document: 54 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pages: 66 Madison Mut. Ins. Co. v. Diamond State Ins. Co., 851 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................21 McMillian v. Sheraton Chi. Hotel & Towers, 567 F.3d 839 (7th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................2 Mtoched v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................7 Quiban v. Veterans Admin., 928 F.2d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ..........................................................................32 Romeu v. Cohen, 265 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2001) ......................................................... 5, 16, 25, 33, 41 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) ...................................................................................... 18, 40 San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) .................................................................................................24 Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (1976) ...............................................................................................23 Tuaua v. United States, 788 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 35-36 United States v. Lebron-Caceres, No. 15-cr-279, 2016 WL 204447 (D.P.R. Jan. 15, 2016) ..................................36 United States v. Lee, 472 F.3d 638 (2006) ...............................................................................................8 Wabol v.Villacrusis, 958 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................36 Case: 16-4240 Document: 54 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pages: 66 U.S. Constitution: Art. I, § 2 ...................................................................................................................5 Art. I, § 4, cl. 1 ..........................................................................................................5 Art. II, § 1 ..................................................................................................................4 Cl. 2 ........................................................................................................................4 Art. III ........................................................................................................................2 Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 (Territorial Clause).................................................. 6, 14, 24, 32 Amend. V................................................................................................................24 Due Process Clause ................................................................................ 3, 12, 16 Amend. XIV (Equal Protection Clause) .............................................................17 Amend. XVII ............................................................................................................5 Statutes: Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-229, 122 Stat. 754 ....................................................................38 Guano Islands Act, 48 U.S.C. §§ 1411-1419 .........................................................................................6 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, Pub. L. No. 99-410, 100 Stat. 924 (1986) (codified at 52 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq.): 52 U.S.C. § 20302 .............................................................................................39 52 U.S.C. § 20302(a)(1) .....................................................................................9 52 U.S.C. § 20310(3) ........................................................................................10 52 U.S.C. § 20310(5) ........................................................................................10 52 U.S.C. § 20310(6) ................................................................................. 10, 39 Case: 16-4240 Document: 54 Filed: 06/26/2017 Pages: 66 52 U.S.C. § 20310(8) ....................................................................... 2, 10, 24, 32 7 U.S.C. § 2014 ........................................................................................................35 8 U.S.C. § 1402 ........................................................................................................35 8 U.S.C. § 1406 ........................................................................................................35
Recommended publications
  • OGC-98-5 U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution

    OGC-98-5 U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution

    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Committee on GAO Resources, House of Representatives November 1997 U.S. INSULAR AREAS Application of the U.S. Constitution GAO/OGC-98-5 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Office of the General Counsel B-271897 November 7, 1997 The Honorable Don Young Chairman Committee on Resources House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: More than 4 million U.S. citizens and nationals live in insular areas1 under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Territorial Clause of the Constitution authorizes the Congress to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property” of the United States.2 Relying on the Territorial Clause, the Congress has enacted legislation making some provisions of the Constitution explicitly applicable in the insular areas. In addition to this congressional action, courts from time to time have ruled on the application of constitutional provisions to one or more of the insular areas. You asked us to update our 1991 report to you on the applicability of provisions of the Constitution to five insular areas: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the CNMI), American Samoa, and Guam. You asked specifically about significant judicial and legislative developments concerning the political or tax status of these areas, as well as court decisions since our earlier report involving the applicability of constitutional provisions to these areas. We have included this information in appendix I. 1As we did in our 1991 report on this issue, Applicability of Relevant Provisions of the U.S.
  • Early Cultural and Historical Seascape of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument

    Early Cultural and Historical Seascape of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument

    Early Cultural and Historical Seascape of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Archival and Literary Research Report Jesi Quan Bautista Savannah Smith Honolulu, Hawai’i 2018 Early Cultural and Historical Seascape of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Archival and Literary Research Report Jesi Quan Bautista Savannah Smith Honolulu, Hawai’i 2018 For additional information, please contact Malia Chow at [email protected]. This document may be referenced as Pacific Islands Regional Office [PIRO]. 2019. Early Cultural & Historical Seascape of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, PIRO Special Publication, SP-19-005, 57 p. doi:10.25923/fb5w-jw23 Table of Contents Preface................................................................................................................................. 1 Use as a Reference Tool ..................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 1 Cultural-Historical Connectivity Within the Monument .................................................... 2 WAKE ATOLL || ENEEN-KIO ..................................................................................... 4 JOHNSTON ATOLL || KALAMA & CORNWALLIS ................................................. 7 PALMYRA ATOLL || HONUAIĀKEA .....................................................................
  • Congressional Record—Senate S3250

    Congressional Record—Senate S3250

    S3250 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 21, 2015 Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11; The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Whereas William T. Miller, Superintendent 123 Stat. 1385) is amended— objection, it is so ordered. of Airways at the Department of Commerce, (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘Article III(c)’’ The clerk will report the resolution was appointed to lead the colonization and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’; and by title. project, traveled to Hawaii in February 1935, met with Albert F. Judd, Trustee of Kameha- (2) in clause (ii)(II), by striking ‘‘Article The senior assistant legislative clerk III(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘Articles III(c)’’. meha Schools and the Bishop Museum, and (c) PROJECT CONTRACTS.—Section 10604(f)(1) read as follows: agreed that recent graduates and students of of the Omnibus Public Land Management A resolution (S. Res. 109) acknowledging the Kamehameha School for Boys would Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1391) and honoring brave young men from Hawaii make ideal colonists for the project; is amended by inserting ‘‘Project’’ before who enabled the United States to establish Whereas the ideal Hawaiian candidates ‘‘water’’. and maintain jurisdiction in remote equa- were candidates who could ‘‘fish in the na- (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— torial islands as prolonged conflict in the Pa- tive manner, swim excellently, handle a Section 10609 of the Omnibus Public Land cific led to World War II. boat, be disciplined, friendly, and unat- Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11; There being no objection, the Senate tached’’; 123 Stat. 1395) is amended— proceeded to consider the resolution.
  • The Smithsonian, the US Navy, and Aquatic Avian Excrement

    The Smithsonian, the US Navy, and Aquatic Avian Excrement

    The Smithsonian, the US Navy, and Aquatic Avian Excrement by Paul F. Johnston, Curator, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution few years ago, an enormous The Coast Guard had an old apprais- Its arrival reminded me of the earlier package arrived at my office al from the original 1979 gift, detailing the correspondence, so I took the book down via the regular US Mail. individual charts. The volume appeared to to the Dibner, where we opened it more Loosely wrapped in brown be complete, so I checked downstairs with fully. A strong musty odor emerged, and paper, it had no return ad- the Dibner Library, the Smithsonian’s rare the Dibner librarian was concerned that dress. Opening one end re- book library specializing in pre-1840 sci- adding the volume to its stacks might trans- vealed a huge, musty leather-covered book, entific publications. They were interested, fer the mold to its other holdings. Next it Areminding me of a conversation a year or so I asked the Coast Guard to send it to us went to our paper conservator, who deter- two before with the staff at the US Coast at their convenience. Nothing happened mined that the mold was not active and Guard Academy library. That repository for some time, and I forgot about the trans- could be removed. The volume spent the had an enormous double elephant folio1 action. next year in her lab, with atlas of forty early nineteenth-century sea two volunteers carefully charts, bound into a single volume dating rubbing ground-up pink to 1826.
  • Masterarbeit / Master´S Thesis

    Masterarbeit / Master´S Thesis

    MASTERARBEIT / MASTER´S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master´s Thesis „Maritime Territorial Conflicts: The Geo-Political Legacy of Guano Islands“ verfasst von / submitted by Khushita Vasant angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master (MA) Wien, 2016 / Vienna 2016 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 067 805 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Individuelles Masterstudium: degree programme as it appears on Global Studies – a European Perspective the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Margarete Maria Grandner Mitbetreut von / Co-Supervisor: MASTERARBEIT / MASTER THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit /Title of the master thesis Maritime Territorial Conflicts: The Geo-Political Legacy of Guano Islands Verfasser /Author Khushita Vasant angestrebter akademischer Grad / acadamic degree aspired Master (MA) Wien, 2016 Studienkennzahl : A 067 805 Studienrichtung: Individuelles Masterstudium: Global Studies – a European Perspective Betreuer/Supervisor: ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Margarete Maria Grandner ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This master’s thesis could not have been written without the immense and valuable help of my friend and colleague Mag. Markus Gatschnegg. Not only has he been a patient listener, he has also been extremely large-hearted in letting me borrow the ample primary research material that he spent months gathering for a separate project of his own. I owe gratitude to my thesis supervisor Ao. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Margarete Maria Grandner because she has been instrumental in the germination of this research theme right up to the final shape this paper has taken. I am extremely grateful for the guidance, judiciousness, and the forbearance Professor Grandner has shown me.
  • Men Who Would Be King: Forgotten Challenges to U.S. Sovereignty

    Men Who Would Be King: Forgotten Challenges to U.S. Sovereignty

    UCLA UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal Title The Men Who Would Be King: Forgotten Challenges to U.S. Sovereignty Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5bz3b5xn Journal UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 26(1) Author Clanton, Adam Publication Date 2008 DOI 10.5070/P8261022205 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ARTICLES THE MEN WHO WOULD BE KING: FORGOTTEN CHALLENGES TO U.S. SOVEREIGNTY Adam Clanton* I. INTRODUCTION If you wanted to start your own country, would you know where to begin? Is it better to secede from the country in which you live, to get on a boat and set sail for land as yet unclaimed, or to conquer what someone else regards as their country? This ar- ticle is dedicated to the curiosity of the "micronation" - experi- ments in creating small nation-states in which individuals or small groups defy the traditional international community by de- claring their own sovereignty. More specifically, this article ex- amines micronation experiments that have occurred within the presently recognized borders of the United States. For example, in 1968, civil rights activists formed an independent "nation" con- sisting of the area that included the States of Mississippi, Ala- bama, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina, declaring it the "Republic of New Afrika." Likewise, in 1962, two groups at- tempted to form the twin micronations of "Atlantis, Isle of Gold," and the "Grand Capri Republic" on coral reefs ten miles off of the coast of Miami. This article attempts to shed light on America's geographical oddities, such as its claims over the remote Pacific outpost of Pal- myra Island, and the former independent nations of the "Repub- lic of Hawaii" and the "Republic of Texas," but at the same time attempts a serious look at how the Supreme Court and other fed- eral courts have justified the valid acquisition of sovereign terri- tory.
  • Seabird Biology in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument

    Seabird Biology in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument

    Marine Science Lesson Plans about the Pacific Marine National Monuments: Options for Enhancing Ocean Literacy in the 7th through 12th Grade Classroom Laura K. Nelson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Marine Affairs University of Washington 2014 Committee: Marc L. Miller, Chair Terrie Klinger Maile Sullivan Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Marine and Environmental Affairs ©Copyright 2014 Laura K. Nelson University of Washington Abstract Marine Science Lesson Plans about the Pacific Marine National Monuments: Options for Enhancing Ocean Literacy in the 7th through 12th Grade Classroom. Laura K. Nelson Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Marc L. Miller School of Marine and Environmental Affairs Abstract The ocean is one of the Earth’s defining features; it provides our world with variety of beneficial services like regulating climate, providing food, and is a source of wonder and inspiration. However, despite its size and powerful nature it is not immune to degradation. One of the greatest risks to our ocean is a general lack of understanding amongst the public of basic ocean processes and how an individual’s actions contribute to environmental harm. In the United States, a low level of ocean-centered education in the K-12 classroom contributes to the lack of ocean literacy. This study presents a review of current levels of ocean literacy in the United States and highlights the benefits of increased levels of ocean science education. Barriers, ii challenges, and potential solutions for the increased implementation of ocean literacy in the classroom are identified. One of the barriers identified is lack of appropriate curricula available to teachers.
  • Uncorrected Non Corrigé

    Uncorrected Non Corrigé

    Uncorrected Non corrigé CR 2012/14 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2012 Public sitting held on Tuesday 1 May 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2012 Audience publique tenue le mardi 1er mai 2012, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, en l’affaire du Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Tomka Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor Judges Owada Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Xue Donoghue Sebutinde Judges ad hoc Mensah Cot Registrar Couvreur ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 - Présents : M. Tomka, président M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président MM. Owada Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Mmes Xue Donoghue Sebutinde, juges MM. Mensah Cot, juges ad hoc M. Couvreur, greffier ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 - The Government of Nicaragua is represented by: H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Agent and Counsel; Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., Chichele Professor of International Law, University of Oxford, Counsel and Advocate, Mr. Alex Oude Elferink, Deputy-Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University, Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, former Member and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, associate member of the Institut de droit international, Mr. Paul Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., Member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia, Mr.
  • The Svalbard Treaty, Equal Enjoyment, and Terra Nullius: Lessons of Territorial Temptation from History

    The Svalbard Treaty, Equal Enjoyment, and Terra Nullius: Lessons of Territorial Temptation from History

    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 15 Issue 1 2015 A Unique International Problem’: The Svalbard Treaty, Equal Enjoyment, and Terra Nullius: Lessons of Territorial Temptation from History Christopher R. Rossi University of Iowa College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Admiralty Commons, International Law Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Christopher R. Rossi, A Unique International Problem’: The Svalbard Treaty, Equal Enjoyment, and Terra Nullius: Lessons of Territorial Temptation from History, 15 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 93 (2016), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol15/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ‘A UNIQUE INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM’: THE SVALBARD TREATY, EQUAL ENJOYMENT, AND TERRA NULLIUS: LESSONS OF TERRITORIAL TEMPTATION FROM HISTORY CHRISTOPHER R. ROSSI ABSTRACT The 1920 Svalbard Treaty conferred full and absolute sovereignty on Norway but paradoxically limited that sovereignty by conferring on states party to the treaty equal enjoyment and liberty of access provisions on Svalbard and in its territorial waters. Whether these provisions now extend to geographic areas adjacent to Svalbard’s territorial sea— specifically to Svalbard’s oil-rich continental shelf and abundant fishing stock of the superjacent waters of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—is a matter of considerable debate.
  • David J. Lazerwitz

    David J. Lazerwitz

    Services David J. Lazerwitz • Energy + Natural Resources Partner • Environmental Law • Environmental Litigation [email protected] • Environmental Regulatory / San Francisco: 415.954.4980 Compliance • Natural Resource Protection • Real Estate • Renewable Energy • Engineering, Procurement, and Construction David J. Lazerwitz's practice focuses on federal and state environmental and natural resource laws, permitting, and land use matters, with an emphasis on the permitting, entitlements, and contractual Education requirements of large-scale renewable energy generation, energy storage, and infrastructure projects. • Indiana University School of David advises public and private clients on a wide array of issues arising in the planning and development of Law (J.D., 1995) projects and facilities in the renewable and traditional energy generation, electrical transmission, energy . magna cum laude; Order of storage, water services, and transportation sectors. His compliance and permitting practice focuses on water the Coif; Associate Editor, quality, wetlands, environmental impact analysis, endangered species, hazardous waste, and federal public Indiana Law Journal lands issues, and responding to agency inspections and administrative enforcement actions. He has extensive experience in all aspects of project and site development, from orchestrating overall permitting • Indiana University School of strategies for complex large-scale development projects to securing individual permits and approvals. Public and Environmental Affairs (M.P.A- Environmental His involvement in project development begins at site selection. David advises his clients in analyzing the Policy and Natural Resource benefits and challenges of potential sites, including anticipated impacts, permitting and environmental review Management, 1995) timelines, mitigation options and identifying and resolving potential project opposition. Once a site is chosen, Environmental Policy and he coordinates and guides clients through federal, state, and local governmental review, permitting, and .
  • No. 06-828L June 30, 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KINGMAN REEF ATOLL

    No. 06-828L June 30, 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KINGMAN REEF ATOLL

    No. 06-828L June 30, 2014 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KINGMAN REEF ATOLL * DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., * * RCFC 56 Motions for Summary Plaintiff, * Judgment; Takings; Equitable v. * Estoppel; Lost Grant; Adverse * Possession; Statute of Limitations. UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Therese Y. Cannata, Cannata, Ching & O’Toole, LLP, San Francisco, California, for plaintiff. With her was Christian P. Porter, Porter, Tom, Quitiquit, Chee & Watts, LLP, Honolulu, Hawaii, of counsel. Kristine S. Tardiff, Trial Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her were John P. Tustin, Trial Attorney, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Sam Hirsch, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice; Robert J. Smith, Assistant Chief, Office of General Counsel, Navy Litigation Office; Mariel J. Combs, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior; Elena Onaga, Deputy Section Chief, Pacific Islands Section, NOAA Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Commerce; and Kevin A. Baumert, Attorney-Advisory, Office of the Legal Advisor, United States Department of State, of counsel. O P I N I O N HORN, J. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case addresses the amended complaint filed by plaintiff, Kingman Reef Atoll Development, L.L.C. (KRAD) in 2012. Originally, Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. (KRAI) and KRAD brought a takings claim before this court alleging that KRAI held fee simple absolute title to Kingman Reef, an atoll in the Pacific Ocean, that KRAD held a leasehold interest, and that the United States government took their real property interest without payment of just compensation.

  • Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation to Extend the Territorial Sea

    Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea The President has the authority to issue a proclamation extending the jurisdiction of the United States over the territorial sea from three to twelve miles out. The President also has the authority to assert the United States’s sovereignty over the extended ter­ ritorial sea, although most such claims in the nation’s history have been executed by treaty. There is a serious question whether Congress has the authority either to assert jurisdiction over an expanded territorial sea for purposes of international law or to assert the United States’s sover­ eignty over it. The domestic law effect on federal statutes of the extension of the territorial sea is to be determined by examining Congress’s intent in enacting each affected statute. The extension of the territorial sea will not affect the Coastal Zone Management Act. October 4, 1988 M e m o r a n d u m O p in io n f o r t h e L e g a l A d v is e r D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e Introduction and Summary This responds to the requests, made by your Office and an inter-agency work­ ing group, for analysis of the constitutional and statutory questions raised by a proposed presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea of the United States from its present breadth of three miles to twelve miles.1 In particular, we have been asked to address the following questions: First, does the President have the authority to declare, by presidential proclamation, the proposed extension? Second, assuming the President does have the authority, what effect would such a proclamation have on domestic legislation, such as the Coastal Zone Manage­ ment Act? Third, can the President limit the effect the proclamation will have on domestic legislation? We have also been asked to comment on H.R.