Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

June 25, 2008 I Volume 2 I No. 12 ........-::-:..: "plans and specifications and the location of such bridge and accessory works" before commencing construction or reconstruction of a bridge. In 2000, DIBC sought and received the approval of several federal agencies for the installation of new tollbooths, a fuel station, and truck weighing stations within the Ambassador Bridge approaches. The city denied DIBC's request for approval of those construction projects. The city found the projects violated its zoning ordinance. The city refused to issue variances because of concerns of increased truck ex- haust and noise. Nonetheless, DIBC went forward with its projects. The city filed an injunctive action, asking a trial court to stbp DIBC's construction projects. The trial court ruled that DIBC was immune from the zoning ordinance because it was a federal instrumentality. The trial court also held that the city's zoning ordinance was preempted by the federal government's intent to control the entire bridge complex. The city appealed. The court of appeals reversed on both grounds. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Michigan first noted that fed- eral preemption occUrred when a state or local regulation prevented a private entity from carrymg out a federal function that Congress tasked it with performing. The court said that a private entity was a "federal instrumentality" when it was acting in furtherance of the applicable fed- eral function. Thus, the court said, federal instrumentality status could be limited to apply only when a private entity was acting in furtherance of the federal purpose that made it a federal instrumentality. The court . further explained that "limited federal instrumentalities'" were only lm- mune from state laws and local regulations when: (i) their actions were within the scope of the federal purpose Congress assigned to them; and (2) the state law or local regulation, if applied, would sufficiently restrict their' federal purpose. In order to determine whether DIBC was a limited federal instrumental- ity, the court applied a three-part analysis. First the court applied a factor- based test, considering: (1) the function for which DIBC was established; (2) whether DIBC continued to serve that function; and (3) the significance of the federal control exerted on, and the federal involvement with, DIBC. Accepting the trial court's factual findings, the court found that DIBC was tasked by Gongress to build, operate, and maintain the' bridge. The court ' found the function served by this task was the federal pUrpose of free-flow- ing interstate and foreign commerce. The court then found that DIBC con- tinued to serve that function because it was still maintaining and operating ~'\ ) @200S Thomson ReuterslWest 9 79