Document: 440 U.S. 59 99 S.Ct. 919 L.Ed.2d 144 State of CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,v.State ARIZONA and the United States. No. 78, Orig. Argued Jan. 9, 1979. Decided Feb. 22, Syllabus To resolve a dispute over ownership certain lands, California seeks to invoke this Court's original jurisdiction in an action quiet title against Arizona States, both which contend that States has not consented be defendant therefore California's motion for leave file bill complaint must denied. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) permits named as adjudicate disputed real property claims interest other than security or water rights; 1346(f) gives federal district courts "exclusive jurisdiction" actions under 2409a is claimed by Held : Under 2409a(a), waived its sovereign immunity suit case, hence there no bar suit. The legislative history shows intent Congress divest Court such cases otherwise within jurisdiction, attempt would raise grave constitutional questions. section did more assure was conferred upon any State. Pp. 65-68. Allan J. Goodman, Deputy Atty. Gen. Cal., Sacramento, Cal. Russell A. Kolsrud, Asst. Ariz., Phoenix, Ariz. Louis F. Claiborne, Sol. Gen., Dept. Justice, Washington, D. C., U. S. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Since admission Union 1850, southeastern boundary been middle channel Colorado River. Act Sept. 9 Stat. 452. Neither Gadsden Purchase 1853 nor statehood 1912 changed location 229-mile border. river change, however, from causes natural artificial. These shifts created confusion about political between Arizona. This problem resolved through interstate compact, ratified 1966.1 Compact fixed stations longitude latitude, divorced continuing 2 taken position, settled only questions property, since, "equal-footing doctrine," holds all lands beneath navigable waters boundaries at time Union. Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 219, 11 L.Ed. 565. See Oregon ex rel. Land Bd. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 363, 97 582, 50 550. In early 1970's Lands Commission made study stretch 11.3 miles along determine what land owns. Both have direct determination. Arizona, course, same rights equal-footing doctrine does California. principal riparian owner region, determination width old riverbed thus will necessarily affect interests. presented determinations States; neither acquiesced Commission's conclusions. it claims, with States.2 sue relies on 1251(a), confers "original exclusive . controversies two States." 1251(b), but [a]ll State." these heads find their source Art. III, 2, Constitution: "In Cases shall Party, supreme Jurisdiction." 4 It undisputed are indispensable parties litigation, need creates before us. Specifically, agreed quiet-title Yet court can because (emphasis added) 1251(a)(1). 5 give consent sued even when one invokes jurisdiction: 6 "It follow state may without consent, consent. Public policy forbids conclusion." Kansas 204 331, 342, 27 388, 391, 51 510. 7 Hitchcock, 202 60, 26 568, 935; Minnesota 185 373, 387, 22 650, 655, 46 954 (dicta). But cf. Texas, 143 621, 12 488, 36 285. recognized equity cannot maintained joinder parties.3 Shields Barrow, 17 130, 15 158; Mallow Hinde, Wheat. 193, 599. Thus, if this, "A entertained which, filed, could dismissed absence party." California, 298 558, 572, 56 848, 855, 80 1331. Texas New Mexico, 352 991, 77 552, 540, see Florida Georgia, 478, 494-496, 181 (Taney, C. J.). 8 suit, then, court. hear immunity, claims. asserted dilemma, Solicitor General undertaking behalf He that, granted intervene respect controversy part area question.4 Because, we concluded already assess wisdom validity General's suggestion. 1972 passed Pub.L. 92-562, 86 1176. relevant changes Code.5 First, new 2409a.6 Subsection (a) provides: 10 "The party civil interest, rights. " remainder defines procedures followed suits. Second, amended 1346 add subsection (f). That estate 13 clear brought land. question whether suits waiver heard argues they not, operates confer case simultaneously withdraw If contention were accepted, immediately arise. question, quite simply, deprive Constitution. 14 Supreme Constitution itself. self-executing, needs implementation. Kentucky Dennison, 24 66, 96, 16 717; 492, 181; Martin Hunter's Lessee, 304, 332, 97. clear, refuse waive Nation's some courts. Either bind exercise jurisdiction. similarly constitutionally exclusive—that awarded concurrent statute. Bors Preston, 111 252, 407, 419; Ames Johnston, 449, 437, 482. once far grant limited involving envoys foreign nations. Framers seem concerned matching dignity status court: evident purpose [of jurisdiction] open keep highest nation determination, first instance, diplomatic commercial representative government. So much due rank those whom provision ." Id., 464, S.Ct., 444. Federalist 81, pp. 507-509 (H. Lodge ed. 1888) (A. Hamilton). Elimination require go another court, derogation purpose. broad powers extremely doubtful include power limit manner 18 Happily, decide statute readily construed way obviate it. so construing statute, long practice forgo resolution issues except absolutely necessary. "When act drawn serious doubt constitutionality raised, cardinal principle ascertain construction fairly possible avoided." Crowell Benson, 285 62, 52 285, 296, 76 598. 19 sparse, seems reasonably clear. congressional simply confine exclude might presumed had waived. Charles Dowd Box Co. Courtney, 368 502, 82 519, 483; Claflin Houseman, 93 136, 23 833.7 intention our We find, therefore, 1346(f), vesting courts, 20 For reasons conclude plaintiff, defendants.8 Accordingly, granted, defendants allowed 45 days answer respond. 21 ordered. Interstate Defining Boundary Between 340. points out arise entire California-Arizona urges retain adjudication potential additional controversies. suggestion later date. Federal Rule Civ.Proc. 19(a) provides person joined "(1) his complete relief accorded among parties, (2) he relating subject situated disposition (i) practical matter impair impede ability protect (ii) persons substantial risk incurring double, multiple, inconsistent obligations reason interest." 19(b) described joined, "the good conscience should proceed it, dismissed, absent being regarded indispensable." 9(2) form pleadings motions governed, be, Rules Civil Procedure, respects rules, where application appropriate, guide procedure court." want party, 599; Southern Pacific 157 229, 256, 591, 602, 39 683. Here, three interests inextricably linked. maintains Government valid limitations defense concerns northern 2.7 11.3-mile controversy. undertaken intervene, tract. also included venue provision, codified 1402(d). reads: "(a) apply trust restricted Indian sections 1346, 1347, 1491, 2410 title, 7424, 7425, 7426 Internal Revenue Code 1954, 208 July 10, 1952 "(b) disturbed possession control involved pending final judgment decree, conclusion appeal therefrom, sixty days; adverse nevertheless thereof elect, payment determined entitled thereto amount election just compensation control. "(c) set forth particularity nature right, plaintiff circumstances acquired, "(d) disclaims therein prior actual commencement trial, disclaimer confirmed order cease unless ground independent authority title. "(e) A tried jury. "(f) Any barred commenced twelve years date accrued. Such deemed accrued predecessor knew known claim "(g) Nothing permit based possession." legislation resulted landowners Snake River Idaho. 1971 Senators Idaho introduced bills response dispute. One bills, 216, Government's actions. As originally drafted, section, 2408a, providing: Hearings, Subcommittee Senate Committee Interior Insular Affairs 92d Cong., 1st Sess., (1971). At hearing administration opposed 216 offered propose acceptable substitute. promised letter Attorney October 1971. S.Rep. 92-575, 5-7 Most now make up subsections (b) (g) 2409a. suggested change bill's jurisdictional section. Rather provided, added). explained requested follows: "Since believe better litigate draft courts." S.Rep.No. supra, 7. administration's suggestions were, most part, accepted. There discussion Report either House Committee, H.R.Rep. 92-1559 (1972), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1972, p. 4547, supra. Nor debate floor House. 117 Cong.Rec. 46380-46381 (1971) (passage Senate); 118 35530-35531 (1972) Representatives); id., 35993 (concurrence amendments House). appropriate factual complexity involves rather boundary. considerations hardly fact several decided complicated Massachusetts York, 271 65, 357, 70 838, example, York Lake Ontario. 954, Wisconsin Lane, 245 427, 38 135, 62 377, expressly Utah, 279 816, 49 341, 73 973; Oregon, 282 804, 100, 75 722; Alabama, 313 274, 61 1011, 85 1327; Wyoming, 333 834, 68 601, 92 1118; 332 19, 67 1658, 91 1889; Louisiana, 339 699, 914, 94 1216; 707, 918, 1221.

Category: 8