Opinion ID: 65019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tenth Amendment Claims

Text: Finally, Appellants argue that the establishment of the refuge is unconstitutional because it impermissibly intrudes on state sovereignty and violates the Property [2] and Necessary and Proper Clauses. [3] Before ruling we must determine precisely what, if any, issues are properly before us. In its amended complaint, the City alleged that there was not a sufficient nexus between the agency's action and interstate commerce, and that FWS violated the City's Tenth Amendment right to secure sufficient water supplies for future residents. In its brief before the district court, however, the City conceded that it could not challenge the constitutionality of the statutes allowing for acquisition of property. The City's brief also did not argue a constitutional right to secure water supplies, which the district court nonetheless characterized as a spurious argument without legal basis. City of Dallas, Tex. v. Hall, 2007 WL 3125311, at  (N.D.Tex. October 24, 2007). Rather, the City asserted that FWS exceeded its authority under the Tenth Amendment when it established the acquisition boundary and accepted the conservation easement, because it did so for the purpose of commandeering the state's water planning process and thwarting the reservoir. Because these were not the allegations pleaded in the amended complaint, the district court declined to consider them on the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The allegations in the amended complaint, not having been appealed, are waived. In its brief before this court, the City revises its constitutional argument. In this iteration, the City argues that FWS, by establishing the refuge, has unconstitutionally invaded a traditional area of state sovereigntywater and land use planningwithout clear authorization from Congress. Additionally, it argues that establishing the refuge violates the Tenth Amendment by running afoul of the Property and Necessary and Proper Clauses. These arguments bear only a passing resemblance to the City's arguments on the motion to dismiss, and none at all to its arguments in the amended complaint. Accordingly, these arguments are not properly presented and we decline to consider them. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (It is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1327 (5th Cir.1994) ([I]f a litigant desires to preserve an argument for appeal, the litigant must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings before the district court. If an argument is not raised to such a degree that the district court has an opportunity to rule on it, we will not address it on appeal.).