Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Ramon Feliciano v. United States of America

422 F.2d 943

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-03-11
Topic
real-estate

How later courts describe this case

  • enforcement of Presidential order creating "Culebra Island Naval Defensive Sea Area" against civilian population of Culebra not a taking of plaintiff's property or violation of right to travel or due process
  • “At the present time, the rights of our citizens to come and go as they please may be somewhat restricted by the necessity of protecting this nation from our enemies in time of war.”
  • designating the "Culebra Island Naval Defensive Sea Area”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ramon Feliciano v. United States of America. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
FELICIANO v. UNITED STATES,422 F.2d 943(1st Cir. 1970)
Ramon FELICIANO et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of
America et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 7388.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
March 11, 1970.
Page 944
Juan R. Torruella, Hato Rey, P.R., with whom Jose A. Suro and Alberto Pico, San Juan, P.R., were on brief, for appellants.

Kevin T. Maroney, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom J. Walter Yeagley, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Walter A. Oleniewski, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on brief, for appellees.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the thoughtful opinion of the district court,297 F. Supp. 1356(D.P.R. 1969), we affirm the court's determination that the present use of the Culebra Island Naval Defensive Sea Area is within the Congressional authorization and the discretion of the President, and that such use does not constitute a taking of plaintiff's property or freedom of movement without due process of law, the only issues raised by this appeal. We would add only a brief comment regarding the two arguments stressed on appeal.

First, appellant places great emphasis on a letter by the Secretary of the Navy to the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs expressing the need for presidential power to create defensive sea areas "in time of actual or threatened war". S.Rep. No. 940, 64th Cong., 2d Sess. (1917). Appellant concludes from this single instance of pertinent legislative history that the President's power must be exercised in compliance with the standard expressed in the letter. However, it seems clear that Congress chose to confer a broader power on the President, who was empowered to create defensive sea areas when they were "necessary in his discretion for purposes of national defense." 18 U.S.C. § 96, recodified as18 U.S.C. § 2152. Such statutory standard was satisfied here.

Secondly, concerning the alleged taking or improper restriction of plaintiff's right of travel, we note that such right may be inhibited, depending on "the extent of the governmental restriction imposed" and the "extent of the necessity for the restriction". Zemel v. Rusk,381 U.S. 1,14,85 S.Ct. 1271,1279,14 L.Ed.2d 179(1965). Here there exist reasonable and frequent means of access to other islands, and the restrictions which do exist are reasonably necessary and — at least as presently administered — limited to such necessity.

Affirmed.Page 1308