Commonwealth of VA v. Reno ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    JANET RENO, in her official capacity
    No. 97-1371
    of Attorney General of the United
    States of America; THE DISTRICT OF
    COLUMBIA,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
    (CA-96-826)
    Argued: August 13, 1997
    Decided: September 9, 1997
    Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and
    MICHAEL, Senior United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded with directions by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Peter Robert Messitt, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellant. Scott Ramsey McIntosh, UNITED STATES DEPART-
    MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Reno; Lutz
    Alexander Prager, Assistant Deputy Corporation Counsel, Washing-
    ton, D.C., for Appellee District. ON BRIEF: James S. Gilmore, III,
    Attorney General of Virginia, Catherine C. Hammond, Deputy Attor-
    ney General, A. Ann Berkebile, Assistant Attorney General, Pamela
    A. Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTOR-
    NEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Frank W. Hun-
    ger, Assistant Attorney General, Helen F. Fahey, United States
    Attorney, Michael Jay Singer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
    OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Reno; Jo Anne Robin-
    son, Interim Corporation Counsel, Charles L. Reischel, Deputy Cor-
    poration Counsel, Appellate Division, Washington, D.C., for
    Appellee District.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    The State of Virginia brought suit against the United States and the
    District of Columbia to prohibit the District's operation of the Lorton
    Correctional Complex. Although the Lorton property is owned by the
    federal government, it lies within the boundaries of Virginia. The rel-
    evant constitutional question was whether the Enclave Clause1 limits
    Congress' power under the Property Clause2 to authorize the Dis-
    trict's operation of a municipal prison beyond the ten square mile area
    set aside for the seat of the federal government. The district court
    found that Congress had acted within its constitutional authority in
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 17.
    2 U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.
    2
    creating Lorton and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.3 Vir-
    ginia appealed.
    While this appeal was pending, but prior to oral argument, Con-
    gress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.4 The Act provides that
    Lorton Correctional Complex prisoners convicted of felonies under
    the District of Columbia Code are to be transferred to federal prisons
    or privately operated correctional facilities and that the Lorton Cor-
    rectional Complex is to be closed no later than December 31, 2001.5
    The transfer of prisoners is to begin "[a]s soon as practicable" after
    the enactment of the Act.6 President Clinton signed the Act into law
    on August 5, 1997.7 At oral argument, held a week after the signing
    of the Act, the United States and the District of Columbia argued that
    the Act renders the case moot. We agree.
    Congress has the ability to moot a pending controversy by enacting
    new legislation.8 In this case, Virginia achieved the relief it desired
    by political means. This court could not order a more rapid closing
    of the Lorton Correctional Complex. Simply put, the Act was
    intended to specifically resolve the controversy, even if it does not
    address the underlying legal question.9 Under these circumstances, we
    find that a controversy no longer exists. In accordance with estab-
    lished practice, we vacate the judgment of the district court and
    remand with instructions to dismiss the suit.10
    VACATED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
    _________________________________________________________________
    3 Commonwealth of Virginia v. Janet Reno, 
    955 F.Supp. 571
     (E.D. Va.
    1997).
    4 Pub.L. 105-33, 
    111 Stat. 251
     (1997).
    5 
    Id.
     § 11201(b).
    6 Id. § 11201(h).
    7 John F. Harris & Eric Pianin, Bipartisanship Reigns at Budget
    Signing, Wash. Post, Aug. 6, 1997, at A1.
    8 See Bowen v. Kizer, 
    485 U.S. 386
    , 387 (1988) (legislative action ren-
    dered controversy moot); Stop H-3 Ass'n v. Dole , 
    870 F.2d 1419
    , 1432
    (9th Cir. 1989) (Congress has authority to moot pending controversy).
    9 Sari Horowitz, Plan Would Close Lorton Over 4 Years, Wash. Post,
    July 31, 1997, at D5.
    10 Bowen, 
    485 U.S. at 387
    .
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1371

Filed Date: 9/9/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021