DETROIT — The company that owns the Ambassador Bridge is not a federal instrument and is not subjected to oversight exclusively from Washington, the Michigan State Court of Appeals has ruled.

In a recent written decision obtained by TodaysTrucking.com, the appeals court agreed with arguments made by the City of Detroit that the Detroit International Bridge Co. — which owns and operates the Ambassador Bridge at the Windsor, Ont.-Detroit border — is “not a federal instrumentality.”

The Ambassador is responsible to local governments
as well, an appeals court has ruled.

Further, the court ruled that the Ambassador Bridge itself is not an “instrumentality exclusive to the federal government,” citing a previous Supreme Court decision that recognized the bridge crossing does not exclusively serve a federal purpose.

With those two points in mind, the appeals court weighed in on a long-standing dispute between the city and the bridge company. It refuted the DIBC’s argument that federal law preempts the city from enforcing Detroit zoning ordinances to construction projects within the bridge plaza.

The case stretches back to 2001, when the City’s Department of Buildings and Safety Engineering denied DIBC permission to construct 11 passenger tollbooths, seven truck tollbooths with scales, and 11 diesel pumps islands onto existing motor filling within the bridge plaza because all three projects were in violation of the Detroit zoning ordinances.

The city then requested and received a temporary restraining order against DIBC, which the city claimed had begun construction on some of the projects without permits. DIBC filed a response that local ordinances do not apply to the projects because they are within the confines of the Bridge Plaza, which is “maintained under contract with the federal government for the essential governmental purposes of conducting customs, naturalization and border control functions.”

In July of that year, a circuit court issued an Interim Order for Partial Declaratory Judgment agreeing with the bridge company that “the bridge was a federal instrumentally and that zoning laws cannot be applied to prevent the bridge from utilizing for lawful purposes property within the bridge complex.” In 2004, it issued a final ruling backing that decision.

But the Michigan Appeals Court has now overturned that ruling. While it essentially agreed with the circuit court’s interpretation that the bridge structure itself was originally constructed to facilitate interstate and international commerce, the appeals court did not think that applies to DIBC.

The case goes back years when, in a plan to relive bridge congestion,
DIBC began construction to the plaza without city permits

“Rather, DIBC merely … owns, maintains, and operates a bridge between Michigan and Canada across the Detroit river; that for passing over this it demands and collects tolls from vehicles and pedestrians,” it stated in the recent decision. “Thus, the circuit court’s finding that DIBC was constructed for the purpose of facilitating interstate and international commerce is clearly erroneous.”

In addition, the appeals court concluded that the circuit court clearly erred in finding sufficient federal government control over DIBC to designate it a federal instrumentality. “The federal government’s control over the bridge, and by extension, DIBC, is merely supervisory and permissive.”

In fact, as Today’s Trucking has reported in the past, the company has complete autonomy over the bridge. It even has the right to restrict law enforcement and engineers from the crossing.

The court added that the bridge itself is not an instrumentality exclusive to the federal government.

“The federal government does not appoint DIBC’s officers; DIBC is a private Michigan corporation using the bridge and accessory buildings for its own commercial activities. The (federal government’s) function is merely supervisory and permissive … According to all of the above authorities, DIBC has not established itself as a federal instrumentality.”

Furthermore, adds the court, twelve days of evidentiary hearings produced no evidence that federal agencies actually encouraged DIBC to undertake any of the plaza projects.

Therefore, the court solidified the city’s authority to enforce zoning permits on the bridge plaza.

As for the DIBC’s claim that “Detroit zoning ordinances stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” the court found that DIBC relied on the Authorization Act and the Bridge Act of 1906 — neither of which establish any degree of federal regulation of DIBC nor restrict the city from enacting ordinances at sites surrounding the bridge.

“Rather, the Authorization Act merely reflects that Congress granted consent to DIBC’s predecessor to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches of the Bridge over navigable waters.”