Opinion ID: 3189206
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: For the United States’ “own use”

Text: First, F.E.B. argues the exception does not apply because the United States did not build up or fill in the island “for its own use,” 43 U.S.C. § 1313(a). Rather, F.E.B. contends, the United States created Wisteria Island incidentally, for the sole purpose of storing the fill that created it, and never used it for anything else. Of course, in ruling on the statute of limitations question, we do not dispositively rule on the merits of F.E.B.’s SLA claim, including as to whether using the island as a place to store fill constitutes “use” under the relevant SLA exception. See Mottaz, 8 It is also undisputed that Florida, F.E.B.’s predecessor, had actual knowledge of how the island was created. 13 Case: 15-11771 Date Filed: 03/28/2016 Page: 14 of 25 476 U.S. at 851 (“The limitations provision of the Quiet Title Act reflects a clear congressional judgment that the national public interest requires barring stale challenges to the United States’ claim to real property, whatever the merits of those challenges.”). For statute of limitations purposes, the crucial issue is whether the SLA clearly and unequivocally abandoned the United States’ interest in the island. It is well-established—and was well-established when the SLA was enacted—that grants of federal property are construed strictly in favor of the United States. See Alaska, 521 U.S. at 34-35; United States v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 112, 116 (1957) (applying “the established rule that land grants are construed favorably to the Government, that nothing passes except what is conveyed in clear language, and that if there are doubts they are resolved for the Government, not against it.”) (citing Caldwell v. United States, 250 U.S. 14, 20 (1919)). Given that rule of construction, the circumstances of Wisteria Island’s creation hew closely enough to the “for its own use” exception to the SLA to preclude a finding that the SLA clearly and unequivocally abandoned the federal government’s interest in that island. That conclusion comports with the Supreme Court’s only treatment of the exception.9 See California ex rel. State Lands Comm’n v. United States 9 In addition, the conclusion is consistent with the SLA’s legislative history, which shows that Congress added the exception in response to the Navy’s concern that the SLA would strip it of 14 Case: 15-11771 Date Filed: 03/28/2016 Page: 15 of 25 (California II), 457 U.S. 273, 287 (1982). In California II, the Supreme Court stated in dicta that the SLA exception for land built up by the United States “for its own use” would apply to coastline that had slowly accreted after the United States constructed jetties nearby, even though the accretion was inadvertent, and the resulting coastline had remained barren and unused for the first eighty years of its existence. Id. at 275-76, 287. That result, the Supreme Court reasoned, “follow[ed] from the congressional object to assure each sovereign the continuing benefit of landfill and like work performed by each.” 10 Id. at 287. Wisteria Island surely was both created and used for a more functional purpose than the inadvertent accretions at issue in California II. Although F.E.B.’s predecessors did not have the benefit of California II, as discussed above, even the SLA’s plain language put them on notice that the cloud on the island’s title remained unresolved. The SLA did not abandon the United States’ interest in the island for purposes of the QTA statute of limitations. submerged lands that it had “improved.” See Submerged Lands: Hearings on S.J. Res. 13, S. 294, S. 107, S. 107 Amend. Before the S. Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83rd Cong. 544-556 (1953) (statement of Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Navy). The Navy specifically listed “fill” as one of the “improvements” at Key West Naval Station that it sought to shield from the SLA. Id. at 547, 549-50. 10 Although California II’s discussion of the exception is dicta, “there is dicta . . . and then there is Supreme Court dicta.” Schwab v. Crosby, 451 F.3d 1308, 1325 (11th Cir. 2006). We have consistently recognized that “dicta from the Supreme Court is not something to be lightly cast aside,” id. (quotation marks omitted), but rather is of “considerable persuasive value,” United States v. City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968, 974 (11th Cir. 1998). 15 Case: 15-11771 Date Filed: 03/28/2016 Page: 16 of 25