Courtney, et al. v. Goltz, et al., No. 12-35392 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs challenged Washington statutes that require a certificate of "public convenience and necessity" (PCN) in order to operate a ferry on Lake Chelan in central Washington sate. The court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not encompass a right to operate a public ferry on intrastate navigable waterways and affirmed the district court's dismissal of this claim. The court also held that the district court properly abstained from deciding on plaintiffs' challenges to the PCN requirement as applied to the provision of boat transportation services on the lake. The district court properly abstained under the Pullman doctrine, but the district court should have retained jurisdiction instead of dismissing the claim. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded this claim with instructions to the district court to retain jurisdiction over the constitutional challenge.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Pullman Doctrine. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal of an action in which plaintiffs challenged Washington statutes that require a certificate of “public convenience and necessity” in order to operate a ferry on Lake Chelan in central Washington state. Plaintiffs first alleged that the state laws abridged their right to use the navigable waters of the United States, in violation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The panel held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not encompass a right to operate a public ferry on intrastate navigable waterways and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of this claim. Plaintiffs also challenged the certificate requirement as applied to the provision of boat transportation services on Lake Chelan solely for patrons of specific businesses. As to this claim, the panel found that the district court properly abstained from deciding the issue under the doctrine set forth in Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941), but that the district court should have retained jurisdiction instead of dismissing the claim. Therefore, the panel vacated and remanded the second claim with instructions that the district court retain jurisdiction over the constitutional challenge.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.