Commonwealth of VA v. Reno

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded with directions by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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