Here is today’s order list. From the order:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment with respect to all matters relating to respondent’s Revenue Sharing Act claim is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with instructions to dismiss that claim as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950).
Lower court materials here.
Here:
Questions presented:
1. Whether the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), or Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1505, grants the Court of Federal Claims subject-matter jurisdiction over an Indian Tribe’s claim for money damages against the United States, based on the United States’ purported violation of sources of law that do not themselves mandate a damages remedy for their violation.
2. Whether the United States may be required to pay damages for failing to provide an Indian Tribe with a statutorily defined portion of a statutory fund, where Congress enacted limited appropriations for that fund and those appropriations were exhausted over a decade before the tribe filed its action for money damages.
Lower court materials are here.
Here is today’s opinion in Samish Indian Nation v. United States.
An excerpt:
The issues on appeal before this court are ones of statutory construction. We must decide whether certain claims are premised on money-mandating statutes and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), and the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1505. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the claims brought by the Samish Indian Nation (“Samish”) because some of their allegations were not premised upon any statute that was moneymandating, and the allegations reliant on moneymandating statutes were limited by other statutes. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ decision that it lacked jurisdiction over some of the Samish’s allegations because the Tribal Priority Allocation (“TPA”) system is not money-mandating. We conclude, however, that the trial court’s ability to provide a monetary remedy under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (“Revenue Sharing Act”) is not limited by operation of the AntiDeficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. We therefore reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the Samish’s Revenue Sharing Act allegations and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Here are the briefs:
Lower court materials here.
Here is the latest opinion in Samish Indian Nation v. United States (Fed. Cl.) — Samish Ct Cl Order
An excerpt:
It is readily apparent that the federal government’s failure to treat plaintiff as a recognized Indian tribe between 1969 and 1996 deprived plaintiff of many of the federal benefits enjoyed by other federally recognized Indian tribes during that time period. However, the relief plaintiff seeks is not available in the Court of Federal Claims. Indeed, if plaintiff is lagging behind some of its sister tribes as a result of the deprivation of federal benefits, its avenue for relief is with Congress.
Here are the materials in this Rule 54(b) motion:
samish-indian-nation-dct-order [an excerpt: Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Plaintiff requests that the court enter a final judgment on its May 27, 2008 Opinion and Order, which dismissed plaintiff’s first claim for relief with respect to the Tribal Priority Allocation (“TPA”) system and the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) funding process. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion.]
us-response-to-rule-54b-motion
Here are the materials from the earlier portion of the case.
Turtle Talk 