Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of TX v. USA
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12946
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- The Alabama‑Coushatta Tribe of Texas sued the United States and federal agencies alleging breach of fiduciary duties and APA violations for permitting/exploiting natural resources on ~400,000 acres the Tribe claims as unextinguished aboriginal title.
- The Tribe sought prospective equitable relief (injunctive/declaratory relief, accounting), not money damages or title recovery.
- The Tribe challenged multiple agency actions across National Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and related permitting/lease/royalty/timber decisions.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; the magistrate judge characterized the complaint as a programmatic challenge.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the Tribe had identified "agency action" under 5 U.S.C. § 702 (APA) sufficient to waive sovereign immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §702 of APA waives sovereign immunity for Tribe's claims | Tribe: §702 waives immunity for nonmonetary APA review and breach of fiduciary duty claims—seeks review under §706 and Nonintercourse Act | Gov: No identifiable, final "agency action" challenged; claims are programmatic and thus not reviewable under §702 | Court: Waiver not established—Tribe failed to allege "agency action" under §702; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Tribe's challenge is a permissible final agency action claim under APA | Tribe: Identified numbers of permits/leases and seeks prospective relief tied to lands claimed by Tribe | Gov: Claims amount to a broad programmatic challenge to agency policies rather than discrete final actions | Court: The complaint is an impermissible programmatic challenge; lacks specific identifiable final agency action |
| Whether breach of fiduciary duty / Nonintercourse Act claims overcome sovereign immunity | Tribe: Nonintercourse Act and federal common law impose fiduciary duty; §702 second waiver covers being "adversely affected" by agency action | Gov: Even fiduciary claims require identifiable agency action to trigger §702 waiver | Court: Fiduciary claim fails for same jurisdictional reason—no adequate allegation of agency action |
| Whether discovery or naming specific actions could cure jurisdictional defects | Tribe: Discovery needed to identify pending agency actions; numbers alleged show discrete activity | Gov: Public records suffice; identification of some actions would still be a programmatic challenge | Court: Discovery/aggregate counts insufficient; challenge remains to programmatic administration and not specific agency action |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (requires final agency action for APA §702 suits seeking review under general APA provisions)
- Sierra Club v. Peterson, 228 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (rejects programmatic challenges and applies Lujan finality principles)
- Sheehan v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 619 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980) (interprets §702 as waiving sovereign immunity for certain nonstatutory claims)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (waiver of sovereign immunity is strictly construed)
- Rothe Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 194 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 1999) (recognizes §702 as waiver of sovereign immunity where agency action is reviewable)