Whether the Federal Enclave Clause requires courts to apply only the state law in effect at the time a federal enclave was created, or whether more recent state law can be adopted as surrogate federal law for federal enclaves

No question identified. : enclaves, such as certain military reservations. U.S Const. art. I, §8, cl. 17. Whena federal enclave is created within a state, any existing state “laws, ordinances, and regulations in conflict with the political character, institutions, and constitution of the [federal] government” are “at once displaced.” Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 546 (1885). But because there are significant areas that federal law does not specifically address, federal law typically adopts the local state law to apply in federal enclaves to the extent that state law is “in no respect inconsistent with any law of the United States.” Id. at 547. In other words, federal law adopts local state law to fill the vacuum that would otherwise exist on federal enclaves with respect to issues where federal law does not itself set a controlling rule. 3. In 1951, the State of Texas ceded to the United States a large parcel of land in Bexar County, Texas that would later become Randolph Air Force Base. For some time, the federal government itself operated the military housing on the base. But in 2007, the United States Air Force outsourced that job to a private entity— AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC, working with its authorized agent AETC II Property Managers, LLC, and Hunt ELP, Limited (collectively “Respondents”)— under a lengthy government contract. Pursuant to the Congressional Military Housing Privatization Initiative, this scheme was meant to improve the quality of housing conditions for active-duty military personnel living on military bases. See Pub. L. 104-106, 110 Stat. 186, 544, 10 U.S.C. §2871 et seq. (1996); see also 28 U.S.C. §2875; 141 Cong. Rec. 818853. Unfortunately, the opposite has occurred. Instead of the improved conditions that Congress expected, many military servicemembers at Randolph Air Force Base and other military bases around the country have found themselves leasing degraded and, at times, hazardous properties from private entities focused on little more than their own financial gain. 4. In October 2017, Applicants Lt. Col. Shane Vinales, his wife Becky Vinales, and their two children leased military housing owned and operated by Respondents at Randolph Air Force Base. During their walkthrough, Applicants objected to the musty smell in the house, but were reassured by Respondents’ representative that the house was clean and safe and that the smell was completely normal. After moving in, however, Applicants found pervasive mold, structural and flooring issues, inadequate electricity, water leaks, and severe insect problems. Applicants also suffered significant health issues as a result of Respondents’ failure to properly address serious asbestos problems on the property. 5. Seeking compensation for Respondents’ complete failure to adequately maintain their properties, Applicants—along with seven other military families who had lived in Respondents’ properties and were injured by Respondents’ failure to maintain those properties—filed suit in the Western District of Texas, asserting various state-law claims against Respondents. Before trial, the district court entered summary judgment against Applicants on most of their claims, holding that in light of the Federal Enclave Clause, the only state law that applied on Randolph Air Force Base (as a federal enclave) was Texas state law as it existed in 1951, when Texas ceded the area to the federal government. Daniels v. AETC II Privatized Hous., LLC, 2023 WL 2558135, at *2-4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2023). The court allowed Applicants to proceed to trial only on their state-law breach of contract claim, as to which a jury found Respondents liable for breach of contract but awarded Applicants only around $90,000 in damages. Vinales v. AETC IT Privatized Hous., LLC, 2023 WL 9781390, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2023). 6. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Vinales v. AETC II Privatized Hous., L.L.C., 146 F.4th 434 (5th Cir. 2025). As relevant here, the p