[1] These enclaves are used for the many different functions of the U.S. federal government including post offices, arsenals, dams, road, etc.
The U.S., in many cases, has also received similar jurisdictional authority over privately owned properties which it leases, as well as privately owned and occupied properties which are located within the exterior boundaries of a large area (such as the District of Columbia and various national parks) which a state has ceded jurisdiction to.
Since the 1953 Howard v. Commissioners case, the Supreme Court has held[8] that the collection of city and state taxes from federal enclave residents is permissible, thus establishing the "Friction Not Fiction" doctrine.
This was challenged by a Maryland law in 1968, the subject of the case Evans v. Cornman; the case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1970 and overruled the Maryland law, thus upholding the voting rights of enclave residents and establishing that they should be regarded as residents of the state in question.
Attorneys General ruled that, in consenting to purchase, the states could reserve no jurisdiction except for the service of criminal and civil processes.
The Supreme Court added that these "cessions" and "reservations" were not limited to Enclave Clause ("needful building") purposes.
In 1928, Congress made some state laws, governing wrongful death and personal injuries, applicable to federal enclaves.
[32] In 1970, the Supreme Court agreed in Evans v. Cornman, holding that all enclave residents had a right to vote in state elections.
[35][incomplete short citation] Earlier, courts in Kansas, Georgia, and New Mexico held they had no jurisdiction to grant divorces to residents of federal enclaves.
[24] Residents of the enclave argued that the annexation was improper because the federal enclave "ceased to be a part of Kentucky when the United States assumed exclusive jurisdiction over it"; the Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that the annexation did not interfere with federal functions and emphasized "friction, not fiction":[38]: 626 A change of municipal boundaries did not interfere in the least with the jurisdiction of the United States within the area or with its use or disposition of the property.
It is friction, not fiction, to which we must give heed.In 1956, three years after Howard v. Commissioners, the Supreme Court in Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County upheld Congress' power to authorize the application of state laws to federal enclaves without a "relinquishment" of jurisdiction.
[42] In 1970, a year after the 1969 report, the Supreme Court in Evans v. Cornman unanimously held that enclave residents have a right to vote in state elections.
[9] Evans also unanimously reaffirmed the holding in Offutt Housing that Congress could give states jurisdiction without relinquishing enclave status.
[45][incomplete short citation] Some criminal laws have also been authorized by Congress to apply on federal enclaves, including "immigrant stations"[46] and Job Corps Centers.
[66] Many Supreme Court decisions regarding federal enclaves are based on the extraterritoriality doctrine that was abolished by Howard and Evans.
[67][incomplete short citation] On the other hand, in 1990, the Supreme Court treated Mississippi Tax I as an enclave case, citing it for the proposition that a state had no authority to regulate a transaction between an out-of-state liquor supplier and a federal military base under exclusive federal jurisdiction.