Opinion ID: 759207
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is there a violation of federal law?

Text: 21 As a general rule, if the state officials' conduct was authorized by state law, and no federal rights were infringed, then the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' rights is merely tortious interference with property rights, and the Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce, Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 693, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949). Although this rule from Larson appears to require us to ascertain whether state officials actually violated federal law, in fact we do not need to dispositively decide this question. The Supreme Court has ruled we need only determine whether Plaintiffs state a non-frivolous, substantial claim for relief against the state officials that does not merely allege a violation of federal law solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction. Larson, 337 U.S. at 690 n. 10, 69 S.Ct. 1457; see also Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U.S. 204, 216, 17 S.Ct. 770, 42 L.Ed. 137 (1897) (It is to be presumed in favor of the jurisdiction of the court that the plaintiff may be able to prove the right which he asserts in his declaration.). Even [t]he possibility that a defendant will ultimately prevail on the merits does not clothe that defendant in Eleventh Amendment immunity. Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 42 F.3d 1244, 1251 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1133, 116 S.Ct. 1416, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996), and rev'd on other grounds, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997). 22 Plaintiffs' complaint seeks prospective equitable relief to enjoin the state officials from committing continuing violations of federal law. The Irrigation and Improvement Districts claim the lease between the United States and New Mexico contains an assignment clause that violates existing federal law, and, as parties to the lease and knowing recipients of the illegal benefits under the assignment provision, the state officials are committing an ongoing violation of federal law. State officials, on the other hand, argue they are not violating federal law and cannot violate the terms of Subsection I of the Fact Finders Act, upon which Plaintiffs base their claims to credit for profits. We find the state officials' argument unpersuasive. The factual record indicates the United States assigned the right to profits from the operation, maintenance and development of a recreation area on Project lands to the State of New Mexico under the 1964 and 1973 leases. New Mexico has continued to retain the profits, if any, from use of the recreation areas over the term of the lease. This arrangement arguably contravenes prior agreements and statutory provisions that provide Plaintiffs with the preeminent right to a portion of the profits. We have, in this instance, a lease between the State of New Mexico and the United States that conflicts with existing federal law. The district court could find federal law was violated both at the inception of the lease and each time the state retained profits that ought to have been credited to the Irrigation and Improvement Districts. Simply because a federal law, like the Fact Finders Act, specifically imposes affirmative obligations on the federal government, does not mean state action cannot also violate that law. Such a conclusion would lead to absurd results and undermine the supremacy of federal law. If the state action aids, encourages, cooperates with, or accepts the benefits of a federal governmental violation of federal law, we believe the state is also potentially culpable. 9 That is precisely the situation we have in this case. New Mexico is purportedly enjoying the benefits the federal government unlawfully assigned to them. Accordingly, without deciding the merits of their claims, we hold Plaintiffs have made an adequate, substantial, and non-frivolous allegation that the state officials are committing violations of federal law, not merely a tortious interference with Plaintiffs' property rights. Plaintiffs' claim is sufficient to support federal jurisdiction, assuming the other requirements for the application of the Ex parte Young doctrine are met. 23