Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin .the bridge. Next the court foUild that the facts showed there was a strong and substantial level of federal control and involvement with DIBC: the federal government maintained strict control over the bridge compound; and the federal government had power to preclude DIBC's construction projects. The court concluded that DIBC was a federal instrumentality for purposes of federal preemption in regards to its conduct of facilitating traf- fic across the Ambassador Bridge. The court then applied the second test-a "conduct-based" analysis to determine whether DIBC's construction projects were within the scope of its limited federal-instrumentality immunity. It found the projects were within that scope of immunity because they were directly motivated by DIBC's federal purpose-to increase the volume of bridge traffic-and they worked to promote tllat purpose; . Finally, the court looked at whether the city's ordinance would interfere with DIBC's limited federal purpose, and, if so, the extent of that interfer- ence. The court found the city's ordinance would have more than an inci- derital effect on DIBC's federal purpose. The court found application of the city's ordinance. would "effectively stop DIBC's construction projects" and traffic problems on the bridge would persist. The court concluded that because the city's ordinance would have completely stopped the DIBC's actions, which were within the scope of its federal purpose, the DIBC was immune from the ordinance as a limited federal instrumentality. See also: U.S. v. State of Mich., 851 R2d 803 (6th Cir. 198B). See also: Name.Spa"ce, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 202 E3d 573, 2000-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 72775 (2d Cir. 2000). See also:]ohnson v. State of Maryland, 254 U.S. 51, 41 S. Ct. 16,65 L. Ed. 126 (1920). Case Note: The. city had argued that its ordinance did not interfere with DIBC's federal purpose such that preemption was required be- cause, in 2007, it issued DIBe a variance that purportedly allowed the construction projects. The city argued that preemption analysis was therefore moot. The court rejected this argument, finding the analysis was reviewable by it because the issue was likely to reoccur if the city revoked the variance and the issue was of public concern. 10 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 80 .. ') )