This case involved a dispute over whether federal or California state law controls the validity and enforcement of due-on-sale clauses in mortgage loans issued by federally chartered savings and loan associations operating in California. The Conference of Federal Savings and Loan Associations and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board sued the California Secretary of the Business and Transportation Agency, seeking a declaration that federal regulations under the Home Owners' Loan Act preempt state rules on these clauses. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and the Bank Board. It held that Congress intended federal law to exclusively govern such clauses, that the Bank Board's regulations have the force of law and preempt conflicting state statutes, and that the Secretary lacks authority to enforce California law against the federal associations, whether the loans were made before or after the effective date of the relevant federal rules.
The case involved a dispute over a $5,549 check for retroactive Social Security disability benefits payable to the children of Frank Hennagin, with the mother (plaintiff Connie Hennagin) and the County of Yolo (defendants) both claiming entitlement after the check was signed over to the county. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring their entitlement to the funds and denying the county's cross-motion. The core reasoning was that under 42 U.S.C. § 407, Social Security benefits are protected from assignment or legal process, and the exception in 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) for child support enforcement does not apply because the benefits belong to the children themselves rather than the disabled father obligated to provide support, as confirmed by the Social Security Administration's position and related precedents.
The case concerned a challenge by companies that process and sell American alligator hides to California Penal Code sections 653o and 653r, which made it unlawful to import, possess for sale, or sell hides of alligators and other listed species. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring the state provisions unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to American alligator hides that comply with federal rules, and permanently enjoining their enforcement in such circumstances. The core reasoning was that the state laws directly prohibited activities authorized by permits and regulations under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, creating a conflict resolved in favor of federal law by the Supremacy Clause.
This case concerned whether the federal government could constitutionally impose an 8% excise tax under 26 U.S.C. § 4261 on air travel purchased by employees of the California Department of Justice after Congress repealed a prior state exemption in 1970. The State of California sued for a refund, arguing that the tax violated implied intergovernmental tax immunity or, alternatively, that it exceeded Congress's commerce power by interfering with core state functions under National League of Cities v. Usery. The district court rejected both arguments, holding that the non-discriminatory tax on air travel did not implicate the narrow immunity recognized in State of New York v. United States and that the financial burden alone did not constitute the kind of interference with state sovereignty barred by National League of Cities. The court therefore dismissed the action, concluding that Congress had acted within its taxing and commerce powers.
This case concerned a mother's federal petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint seeking custody of her minor child, who had been paroled into the United States by immigration authorities under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5) and was physically held by other defendants. The child potentially held U.S. citizenship through an American father, but all parties agreed against revoking the parole that would return the child to Vietnam. The court determined that federal courts normally refrain from exercising jurisdiction in child custody disputes absent exceptional circumstances, and none existed here despite the immigration parole element. It therefore granted the federal defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), discharged the order to show cause, and directed the parties to litigate custody in California state court while allowing amendment of the federal filings within thirty days.
This case involved upholstered furniture manufacturers and trade associations challenging a California statute and regulations requiring that furniture sold in the state be fire retardant and meet specific combustibility tests, on grounds that the law violated the commerce clause, equal protection, due process, and state constitutional and statutory provisions regarding delegation of power. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and injunctive relief, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and upheld the law. It reasoned that abstention was not required because the state law claims did not present uncertain issues that could avoid the federal questions, the statute reflected a legitimate state safety interest with only incidental effects on interstate commerce that did not violate the commerce clause, and the regulation was a reasonable means to address a perceived problem that satisfied due process and equal protection. The court noted that the law's flexible standards for an area of evolving technology were permissible and did not amount to an improper delegation.