Supreme Court

Patricia Millett and James Meggesto Commentary on the Tohono O’odham Decision

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Download a pdf here (Tohono Oodham Nation decision analysis).

Here is the text:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, No. 09-846. The Court, by a vote of 5-2-1 (Justice Kagan recused) reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and held that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over the Tohono O’odham Nation’s claims for monetary relief on its trust mismanagement claims. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Sotomayor issued an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kagan took no part in the decision as she was the Solicitor General during earlier proceedings in the case.

The case arose when the Tohono O’odham Nation filed back-to-back lawsuits seeking relief for numerous violations of trust and fiduciary obligations with respect to assets held in trust by the federal government. The Nation first filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States, seeking primarily equitable relief, including an accounting. That complaint also sought equitable monetary relief in the form of disgorgement and restitution. The next day, the Nation filed a second lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) seeking monetary damages for mismanagement of the same trust assets.

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the action under 28 U. S. C. §1500 for want of jurisdiction. Section 1500 provides that:

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States or any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the United States.

The Court of Federal Claims held that the factual underpinnings for the Nation’s suit before it and the separate suit pending in federal district court were “for all practical purposes identical.” 79 Fed. Cl. 645, 656 (2007).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and held that the CFC retained jurisdiction because the two lawsuits sought distinct forms of relief. 559 F. 3d 1284 (2009). The Federal Circuit held that Section 1500 bars relief only if the claims in the two lawsuits both share operative facts and also seek overlapping relief. Because the court found no overlap in the relief the Nation requested from the two courts, the court of appeals held that the action was not barred by Section 1500.

The Supreme Court has now reversed, significantly limiting the ability of claimants—whether Tribes, government contractors, or property owners challenging unconstitutional takings—to obtain full relief against the United States government for the government’s violations of the law. The Supreme Court held that “[t]wo suits are for or in respect to the same claim, precluding jurisdiction in the CFC, if they are based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the relief sought in each suit.” Slip Op. at 9 (emphasis added). In so holding, the Court acknowledged that “in respect to a claim” could mean facts alone or facts coupled with some overlapping relief. The Court held, however, that the former interpretation was “more reasonable,” pointing to Congress’s provision in the next clause that the CFC would also lack jurisdiction over claims against “any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. §1500. “Acting” “in respect to a cause of action,” the Court concluded, only made sense with respect to factual overlap because it referred to the timeframe before suit was even filed. Individuals cannot “act[]” in respect to particular forms of relief before litigation commences, the Court explained. Thus, the Court concluded, if the phrase “in respect to a cause of action” does not “embrace the concept of remedy, it is reasonable to conclude that” the similarly worded phrase “for or in respect to” a claim does not “embrace the concept of remedy” either. Slip Op. at 5.

Continue reading →

AP News Coverage of U.S. v. TON Opinion

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation Decision

Kate Fort2 Comments

The Supreme Court released the decision in United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation today.  You can access the decision here. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision finding against the tribe. He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurrence, which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Ginsberg wrote the dissent. Justice Kagan took no part in the case.

I’m sure we’ll have more up throughout the day, but here’s the last paragraph of the opinion:

The holding here precludes the CFC from exercising jurisdiction over the Nation’s suit while the District Court case is pending. Should the Nation choose to dismiss the latter action, or upon that action’s completion, the Nation is free to file suit again in the CFC if the statute of limitations is no bar. In the meantime, and in light of the substantial overlap in operative facts between them, the two suits are “for or in respect to” the same claim under §1500, and the CFC case must be dismissed. The contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Supreme Court denies cert in Native Wholesale Supply v. Oklahoma

Kate Fort

The Native Wholesale Supply v. Oklahoma petition was denied cert today.

Last week the Court denied the Winnemucca v. Wasson petition.

The Court’s orders are available here.

Preliminary Thoughts on Jicarilla Oral Argument

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Today, the Court heard arguments in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (transcript here). Pratik Shah (6 prior arguments before the Court) argued for the government, and Steven Gordon (1 prior oral argument) argued for the Nation.

Justice Sotomayor throughout the argument challenged the government on its claims. Early on she asked the government’s advocate on whether the government had a “competing sovereign interest” in not disclosing the relevant documents (tr. at 4). She also asked:

Just explain to me what’s the rationale that would permit a trustee of a trust fund to withhold from the beneficiary the kinds of documents that relate to the management of the trust fund? If the fund exist for the benefit of the Indian tribe, why aren’t they entitled to management documents? (tr. at 5)

At another point, when the government advocate noted that “when Congress uses the term ‘trust’ in the Indian context, that there must be specific statutory regulatory duties that the Court sets out.” (tr. at 7. To which Justice Sotomayot responded, :

You’re not seriously suggesting that if you’re a trustee of an Indian fund that you can breach your fiduciary duty by simply not exercising care in your investment strategies. (tr. at 7-8)

The government’s advocate then reiterated a key position of the government:

The two statutes you’re talking about, 161a and 162a, set forth specific investment duties. They don’t say anything about disclosure. … The United States must provide an account statement, a quarterly account statement; and the United States must provide the Indian tribes and individual Indians an annual audit. That is the extent of disclosure that Congress has set forth and that the Interior Department by regulation has implemented. (tr. at 8-9)

Continue reading →

Oral Argument Transcript in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

Supreme Court Holds States are Immune from Money Damages under RLUIPA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is a big deal for American Indians asserting religious freedom claims against state governments.

Here is today’s opinion in Sossamon v. Texas, authored by Justice Thomas.

From the Court’s syllabus:

After this Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments because it exceeded Congress’ power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, see City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) pursuant to its Spending Clause and Commerce Clause authority. RLUIPA targets two areas of state and local action: land–use regulation, RLUIPA §2, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc, and restrictions on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons, RLUIPA §3, §2000cc–1. It also provides an express private cause of action for “appropriate relief against a government,” §2000cc–2(a), including, inter alia, States, their instrumentalities and officers, and persons acting under color of state law, §2000cc–5(4)(A).

Petitioner Sossamon, a Texas prison inmate, sued respondents, the State and prison officials, seeking injunctive and monetary relief under RLUIPA for prison policies that prevented inmates from attending religious services while on cell restriction for disciplinary infractions and that barred use of the prison chapel for religious worship. Granting respondents summary judgment, the District Court held that sovereign immunity barred Sossamon’s claims for monetary relief. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statutory phrase “appropriate relief against a government” did not unambiguously notify Texas that its acceptance of federal funds was conditioned on a waiver of sovereign immunity to claims for monetary relief.

Held: States, in accepting federal funding, do not consent to waive their sovereign immunity to private suits for money damages under RLUIPA.

No Decision Today in U.S. v. TON; Oral Arguments in Jicarilla Apache Today

Kate Fort

We’ll post a link to the transcript of the oral argument for U.S. v. Jicarilla Apache Nation when it becomes available.

And just for the fun of it, here’s a poll based on yesterday’s post speculating on the reasons for delay in the U.S. v. TON decision:

Updated Coverage of Coeur d’Alene Tribe Misspelling

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From How Appealing:

Even the Chief Justice of the United States misspells a case name every now and then: As though further proof that everyone’s human were needed, a reader emails to note that in his dissenting opinion issued today, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. has misspelled the “Coeur” in the case name Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho as “Couer” some three times. So, the next time you happen to misspell a case name, remember that you’re in good company.

And in early news coverage of today’s ruling, The Associated Press reports that “Court reinstates Va. mental health lawsuit.”

In early 2009, a lovely new federal courthouse opened its doors in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, as noted in this earlier post. Coincidentally, the Chief Justice visited Idaho in 2009, although according to the University of Idaho College of Law the Chief Justicevisited in person only Boise and Moscow — and appeared in Coeur d’Alene only via compressed video feed.

Update: As of 4:10 p.m. eastern time, the Court has corrected the misspelling in the version of the decision available for download from the Court’s web site. The original version of the opinion containing the misspelling, which was available for download from the Court’s web site earlier today, can be accessed here.

Chief Justice Roberts Misspells Coeur d’Alene Tribe … a few times

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From How Appealing:

Even the Chief Justice of the United States misspells a case name every now and then: As though further proof that everyone’s human were needed, a reader emails to note that in his dissenting opinion issued today, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. has misspelled the “Coeur” in the case name Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho as “Couer” some three times. So, the next time you happen to misspell a case name, remember that you’re in good company.