Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

The federal government’s potential power to coordinate or take state assets during emergencies

Raymond K. Shin, JD, MPP

Abstract


The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) allows the federal government to intervene in emergency response efforts without the consent of state governments when there is an emergency that involves a responsibility or authority that is exclusively or pre-eminently granted to the United States. This statute may allow the federal government to coordinate the use of state assets when a state is unable to protect its citizens. Furthermore, the federal government could be able to take state-owned assets and resources under the Takings Clause of the US Constitution to serve the public purpose of responding to a wide-scale emergency as long as there is just compensation for such use. The federal government has yet to employ the Stafford Act or the Takings Clause to coordinate or take state emergency response assets, and although it is unlikely that the federal government would do so in the future, such scenarios may occur under the current legal framework.

Keywords


emergency management, state, federal, Stafford Act, eminent domain, Takings Clause

Full Text:

PDF

References


U.S. Department of Homeland Security: National Response Framework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2008: 10. Available at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2011.

The Center for Law and the Public’s Health: Interjurisdictional legal coordination for public health emergency preparedness. Baltimore, MD: The Center for Law and the Public’s Health, 2004: 13. Available at http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Resources/ResourcesPDFs/Checklist%201.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2011.

42 U.S.C. §5121 (2006).

Whitley J, Coddington K, Koenig G: Homeland security after Hurricane Katrina: Where do we go from here? Nat Resour Environ. 2006; 20: 3.

42 U.S.C. §5170 (2006).

42 U.S.C. §5191(a) (2006).

42 U.S.C. §5149 (2006).

42 U.S.C. §5191(b) (2006).

Ryan E: Federalism and the tug of war within: Seeking checks and balances in the interjurisdictional gray area. Md Law Rev. 2007; 66: 503.

Yoo, J: Trigger Power. Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2, 2005.

Greenberger M: Yes, Virginia: The president can deploy federal troops to prevent the loss of a major American city from a devastating natural catastrophe. University of Maryland School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2006-37, 2006. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=946207. Accessed May 25, 2011.

U.S. Constitution Amendment V.

Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S. Ct. 581, 41 L. Ed. 979 (1897).

United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 241-242, 67 S. Ct. 252, 257, 91 L. Ed. 209, 217 (1946).

Stoebuck WB, Whitman DA: The Law of Property. 3rd ed. Minneapolis, MN: West Group, 2000: 526.

United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. at 243-246, 67 S. Ct. at 258-260, 91 L. Ed. at 218-220 (1946).

Hovenkamp H, Kurtz SF: The Law of Property: An Introductory Survey. 5th ed. Minneapolis, MN: West Group, 2001: 445.

United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24, 29, 105 S. Ct. 451, 454-455, 83 L. Ed. 2d 376, 382 (1984).

Sackman JL: Nichols’ The Law of Eminent Domain §2.18 (2009).

United States v. Holmes, 414 F. Supp. 831 (D. Md. 1976).

United States v. 20.53 Acres of Land, 263 F. Supp. 694 (D. Kan. 1967).

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99, 80 S. Ct. 543, 4 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1960).

Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry., 135 U.S 641, 10 S. Ct. 965, 34 L. Ed. 295 (1890).

United States v. Acquisition of 0.3114 Cuerdas, 753 F. Supp. 50 (D.P.R. 1990).

United States v. Buffalo Pitts Co., 234 U.S. 228, 34 S. Ct. 840, 58 L. Ed. 1290 (1914).

Sackman JL: Nichols’ The Law of Eminent Domain, n. 19, §§2.01[2], n. 18, 5.03[5][d], n. 121 (2009).

Treanor WM: The original understanding of the Takings Clause and the political process. Columbia Law Rev. 1995; 95: 782, 791-792.

Forest of Dean Iron Ore Co. v. United States, 106 Ct. Cl. 250, 65 F. Supp. 585 (1946).

International Harvester Company of America v. United States, 72 Ct. Cl. 707 (1931).

Brand Investment Co. v. United States, 102 Ct. Cl. 40, 58 F. Supp. 749 (1944).

United States v. 11.037 Acres of Land, 685 F. Supp. 214, 217 (N.D. Cal. 1988).

Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 23 L. Ed. 449, 451 (1875).

Lipton E, Schmitt E, Shanker T: Storm and crisis: Military response; political issues snarled plans for troop aid. New York Times, September 9, 2005.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2011.0056

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 Journal of Emergency Management