Kevin Brott v. United States, 858 F.3d 425

Background

Twenty-three Michigan landowners sued in federal district court seeking >$10,000 in just compensation for an alleged taking of land for a public recreational trail.
They asserted (1) a takings claim under the Little Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346), (2) a takings claim under general federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331), and (3) a declaratory-judgment claim that the district court had jurisdiction.
The district court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), holding the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) gives the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction for takings claims > $10,000 and that congressional limits on forum and jury wereconstitutional.
Plaintiffs argued the Tucker Act/Little Tucker Act are unconstitutional because they (a) deny Article III adjudication and (b) strip the Seventh Amendment jury right.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction and statutory interpretation de novo and affirmed dismissal, finding the Court of Federal Claims is the exclusive forum and that Congress permissibly conditioned its waiver of sovereign immunity and removed jury trials for these public-right claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1331 gives district court jurisdiction over >$10,000 takings claims	Brott: § 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction, so district court may hear Fifth Amendment takings claims	U.S.: Tucker Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to Court of Federal Claims for >$10,000; § 1331 does not override that specific grant	Held: No. Tucker Act and Little Tucker Act control; district court lacked § 1331 jurisdiction for >$10,000 claims
Whether Congress may require claims against U.S. to be brought in Court of Federal Claims (separation of powers / Article III)	Brott: Takings are inherently judicial and must be heard in Article III courts	U.S.: Takings claims against the government are public-right claims; Congress may assign them to legislative courts and require waiver/conditions	Held: Constitutional. These are public-right claims; Congress may condition waiver and assign adjudication to Court of Federal Claims with appellate review in Article III (Federal Circuit)
Whether Fifth Amendment itself waives sovereign immunity and supplies a private right to sue in district court	Brott: The Fifth Amendment is "self-executing"; no additional waiver required to sue in district court	U.S.: Sovereign immunity requires congressional waiver and may condition forum; historical practice demonstrates Congress supplied waiver via Tucker Act	Held: Rejected. The Fifth Amendment does not itself supply a forum or waive sovereign immunity; waiver and forum are statutory questions
Whether denial of jury trial violates Seventh Amendment when claims brought under Tucker/Little Tucker Acts	Brott: Plaintiffs are entitled to jury trial on damages against the United States	U.S.: Seventh Amendment does not apply to suits against the federal government and Congress may provide nonjury adjudication for public-right claims	Held: Constitutional. Seventh Amendment does not guarantee jury in these suits; Congress may require bench resolution in Court of Federal Claims

Key Cases Cited

Eastern Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) (Tucker Act gives Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction for money damages founded on the Constitution)
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) (discussing jurisdictional and takings principles under Tucker Act)
Blanchette v. Connecticut Gen. Ins. Corp., 419 U.S. 102 (1974) (takings claims founded upon the Constitution fall within Court of Claims jurisdiction)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (characterizing the Fifth Amendment takings right and remedies discussion)
Bormes v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (Tucker Act and Little Tucker Act are jurisdictional waivers and procedural conditions)
Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934) (Congress may withdraw consent to suit; waiver is a privilege, not a property right)
Sherwood v. United States, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (waiver of sovereign immunity and the Court of Claims’ role in deciding claims against the United States)
Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893) (addressing judicial determination of compensation where statute provided Article III forum)
Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm’n, 430 U.S. 442 (1977) (Seventh Amendment does not bar Congress from assigning initial factfinding to nonjury administrative or legislative forums for public-rights matters)
Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156 (1981) (Seventh Amendment jury right does not apply to suits against the federal government)