Federal Property

Clause 17. District of Columbia; Federal Property

Congress shall have power * * * To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

“Places” (Authority over Places Purchased)

This clause has been broadly construed to cover all structures necessary for carrying on the business of the National Government. 1 It includes post offices,2 a hospital and a hotel located in a national park,3 and locks and dams for the improvement of navigation.4 But it does not cover lands acquired for forests, parks, ranges, wild life sanctuaries or flood control.5 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that a state may convey, and the Congress may accept, either exclusive or qualified jurisdiction over property acquired within the geographical limits of a state, for purposes other than those enumerated in clause 17.6

More about “Places”

After exclusive jurisdiction over lands within a state has been ceded to the United States, Congress alone has the power to punish crimes committed within the ceded territory.7 Private property located thereon is not subject to taxation by the state,8 nor can state statutes enacted subsequent to the transfer have any operation therein.9 But the local laws in force at the date of cession that are protective of private rights continue in force until abrogated by Congress.10 Moreover, as long as there is no interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, an area subject to such jurisdiction may be annexed by a municipality.11

Resources

References

This text about Federal Property is based on “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation”, published by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

[Footnote 1] James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).

[Footnote 2] Battle v. United States, 209 U.S. 36 (1908).

[Footnote 3] Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (1929).

[Footnote 4] James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 143 (1937).

[Footnote 5] Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518, 530 (1938).

[Footnote 6] 304 U.S. at 528.

[Footnote 7] Battle v. United States, 209 U.S. 36 (1908); Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co., 321 U.S. 383 (1944); Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (1939).

[Footnote 8] Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647 (1930).

[Footnote 9] Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chiles, 214 U.S. 274 (1909); Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (1929); Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, 318 U.S. 285 (1943). The Assimilative Crimes Act of 1948, 18 U.S.C. § 13, making applicable to a federal enclave a subsequently enacted criminal law of the state in which the enclave is situated entails no invalid delegation of legislative power to the state. United States v. Sharpnack, 355 U.S. 286, 294, 296-97 (1958).

[Footnote 10] Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 545 (1885); Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94 (1940).

[Footnote 11] Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624 (1953). As Howard recognized, such areas of federal property do not cease to be part of the state in which they are located and the residents of the areas are for most purposes residents of the state. Thus, a state may not constitutionally exclude such residents from the privileges of suffrage if they are otherwise qualified. Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970).

Tables of Contents

• Federal Property and other Topics in the Contents – Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution
• U.S. Constitutional Law Category
• List of amendments to the U.S. Constitution
• Federal Property and other Topics in the Constitution Contents
• Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (Table of Contents)
• Clauses of the Constitution (Table of Contents)

Property owned by the United States is, of course, wholly immune from state taxation.12 No state can regulate, by the imposition of an inspection fee, any activity carried on by the United States directly through its own agents and employees.13 An early case, the authority of which is now uncertain, held invalid a flat rate tax on telegraphic messages, as applied to messages sent by public officers on official business. 14

Federal Property and the U.S. Constitution

Resources

See Also

References

This text about Federal Property is based on “The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation”, published by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

Notes

[Footnote 12] Clallam County v. United States, 263 U.S. 341 (1923). See also Cleveland v. United States, 323 U.S. 329, 333 (1945); United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 412 U.S. 363 (1973); United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 421 U.S. 599 (1975).

[Footnote 13] Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441 (1943). A municipal tax on the privilege of working within the city, levied at the rate of one percent of earnings, although not deemed to be an income tax under state law, was sustained as such when collected from employees of a naval ordinance plant by reason of federal assent to that type of tax expressed in the Buck Act. 4 U.S.C. §§ 105-110. Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624 (1953).

[Footnote 14] Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460, 464 (1882).