federal sovereign immunity – Page 2

These consolidated appeals arise from a government agency’s decision to recapture, via administrative offset, funds that the agency allegedly overpaid to multiple grant recipients. The grant recipients brought suit in federal court, arguing in relevant part that the agency lacked authority to recapture the funds without first providing them with administrative hearings. The district court agreed and ordered the agency to repay the grant recipients. The agency now appeals that order.

If these underlying facts sound relatively straightforward, it’s because they are. But they nevertheless give rise to three legal questions that are decidedly less so: (1) did the agency recapture the funds pursuant to a statute or regulation that imposed a hearing requirement, thus rendering the recaptures illegal; (2) if the agency didn’t recapture the funds pursuant to such a statute or regulation, did it have authority to recapture the alleged overpayments at all; and (3) if not, must the agency reimburse the grant recipients for the amounts it illegally collected?

In answering the first of these three questions, the panel unanimously agrees that the agency didn’t recapture the funds pursuant to a statute or regulation that imposes a hearing requirement. Thus, we agree that the district court erred in ruling that the recipients were entitled to hearings before the agency could recapture the alleged overpayments.

But that’s where our unanimous agreement ends; the remaining questions divide the panel. Ultimately, two members of the panel agree that the agency lacked authority to recapture the funds via administrative offset. Accordingly, we affirm the portion of the district court’s order that characterizes the recaptures as illegal. Nevertheless, two other members of the panel agree that if the agency no longer has the recaptured funds in its possession, then the district court lacked authority to order the agency to repay the recipients. Thus, we reverse that portion of the district court’s order and remand for further factual findings.

Briefs:

HUD Brief

Tribes Brief

HUD Reply

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to San Ildefonso Pueblo Land Rights

July 19, 2017July 19, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights v. United States.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Orders More Briefing on Ownership Liability in CERCLA Suit Involving Navajo Reservation Uranium Mining

June 5, 2017June 5, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in El Paso Natural Gas Co. LLC v. United States (D. Ariz.):

114 Plaintiff Motion for Summary J

119 US Response

123 Reply

128 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff El Paso Natural Gas Company brought suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) against Defendants United States of America, United States Department of the Interior, United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Geological Survey, United States Department of Energy, and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (collectively, “United States”). Doc. 55. Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Doc. 114. The motion is fully briefed (Docs. 114, 119, 123), and the Court heard oral argument on June 1, 2017. For reasons that follow, the Court rejects the United States’ sovereign immunity defense and will require additional briefing on the question of its CERCLA owner liability.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Northern New Mexicans Protecting Land Water and Rights v. United States

September 2, 2016July 19, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Opening Brief

Federal Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Cert Petition in Trust Accounting Claim for Sand Creek Descendants

June 27, 2016Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Download petition for a Writ of Certiorari here.

Questions presented:

Whether a treaty promise to pay reparations to a group of Native Americans in the form and amount that is “best adapted to the respected wants and conditions of” said group of Native Americans, and subsequent appropriation of funds by Congress to pay such reparations, create a fiduciary relationship between the United States and said group of Native Americans.

Whether the Administrative Procedures Act waives the United States’ immunity from suit for accounting claims regarding trust mismanagement that begun before the enactment of the Act.

Whether a set of Appropriations Acts by Congress that defer the accrual of trust mismanagement claims against the United States operates as a waiver of the United States’ immunity from suit.

Previous posts in re Flute v. U.S. here.

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Miccosukee Members’ Federal Tax Challenge

March 24, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Cypress v. United States:

CA11 Unpublished Opinion

An excerpt:

This appeal arises out of a dispute between sixteen members of the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida (the “Tribe members”) and the United States, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Secretaries of the Treasury and of the Interior (collectively, “the Government”). The Tribe members seek declaratory relief to avoid paying federal income taxes on distributions, including gaming proceeds, paid out of the Tribe’s trust account. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for suits brought by individual Tribe members. The Tribe members now appeal the dismissal.

We agree with the district court that the Government did not waive sovereign immunity. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this matter.

Briefs here.