Unfairness against D.C. citizens vs. unfairness in their favo r

[Bryan Wildenthal]

John Duffy wrote:

If reservations are not inconsistent with the "broad grant of
> authority" over federal enclaves, then I don't see how they
> can be inconsistent with the "like Authority" exercised over
> the District enclave.

I would concede this is a somewhat ambiguous issue with no obviously correct
answer, but I can see how reservations that *might* be valid with regard to
state lands "purchased" by the federal govt with state "consent" to form
federal enclaves ("places") *within* a state, *might not* be valid with
regard to lands "ce[ded]" altogether by a state to the federal government to
form a district for the "seat of govt."  See Art I s 8 cl 17.  The
reservation, in the latter case, would purport to bind land which is no
longer part of the state at all.  In the former case, it seems almost
inevitable and automatic to me that if the federal govt relinquishes its
jurisdiction/ownership of the land, it would have to revert to the
jurisdiction "of the state in which the same shall be" (to borrow exact text
from Art I s 8 cl 17 referring to such enclaves).  To whom else, and how
else, would it revert?

As numerous postings have noted, once an area has been ceded altogether by a
state and enough time has gone by, a state might not want it back, and as
Tobias Wolff noted, it would probably violate Art IV, s 3 cl 1 to force it
back into the ceding state without that state's consent.

Bryan Wildenthal, Thomas Jefferson School of Law