Lummi Tribe of Lummi Reservation, Washington v. United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17562
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Congress enacted NAHASDA to provide block grants to Indian tribes for affordable housing, with grant amounts determined by a statutory formula based on factors including Formula Current Assisted Stock (FCAS).
- HUD administered NAHASDA, identified certain tribal housing units as non‑FCAS, and recouped alleged overpayments by reducing subsequent grant allocations to several tribes.
- The Lummi Tribe and affiliated housing entities sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act, alleging HUD misapplied the NAHASDA formula and violated § 4165 procedural hearing requirements.
- The Claims Court held NAHASDA to be money‑mandating (giving it Tucker Act jurisdiction) but ruled the statute’s procedural provision alone did not create an illegal exaction; substantive formula merits were reserved for trial.
- The government appealed interlocutorily, arguing NAHASDA is not money‑mandating and that the tribes’ claims seek equitable, strings‑attached relief rather than presently due money damages.
- The Federal Circuit vacated the Claims Court’s order and instructed dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, concluding the tribes sought equitable relief (ineligible for Tucker Act jurisdiction) and that alleged procedural failures do not amount to an illegal exaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NAHASDA is money‑mandating | NAHASDA’s language (“shall make grants”/“shall allocate”) binds the Secretary to pay qualifying tribes under the formula | NAHASDA authorizes conditional, regulated disbursements (strings attached); it does not create a right to presently due money damages | NAHASDA is not money‑mandating; relief sought is equitable/conditional, not Tucker Act money damages |
| Whether procedural violation of § 4165 creates an illegal exaction | HUD’s failure to provide required notice/hearing rendered the grant reductions an illegal exaction entitling tribes to money recovery | An illegal exaction requires money improperly taken from claimant; failure to award funds is not an exaction | Procedural violations alone do not constitute an illegal exaction; claim fails as basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Nature of the tribes’ remedy (monetary vs. equitable) | Tribes characterize remedy as entitlement to additional grant funds (money due) | Government: any funds would be strings‑attached, subject to reduction/clawback, and thus equitable relief, not present money damages | Remedy is equitable (a regulated disbursement with supervision/adjustment), not an award of presently due money damages |
| Proper forum for relief | Claims Court has jurisdiction under Tucker Act/Indian Tucker Act | Claims Court lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction; tribes may seek relief in other forums via APA/district court review | Claims Court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction; action dismissed and vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory mandatory payment language can suggest money‑mandating statute)
- Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Prods., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir.) (subject‑matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (statutory interpretation reviewed without deference)
- Hopi Tribe v. United States, 782 F.3d 662 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S.) (Tucker Act requires a separate money‑mandating source)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S.) (Tucker Act jurisdiction limits)
- Blueport Co., LLC v. United States, 533 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (tests for money‑mandating statutes)
- National Center for Manufacturing Sciences v. United States, 114 F.3d 196 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishing equitable, regulated disbursements from Tucker Act damages)
- National Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. United States, 160 F.3d 714 (Fed. Cir.) (Claims Court may grant equitable relief only ancillary to actual, presently due money damages)
- Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir.) (definition of illegal exaction involves money improperly taken from claimant)