Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 584
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- This action involves NAHASDA-based challenges to HUD’s grant allocations and alleged recapture of funds.
- Plaintiffs allege HUD improperly counted FCAS units, reducing funding entitlements under the 1997 baseline and the 2008 amendments.
- Fort Peck and other tribes previously sued in district court and/or this court; Fort Peck I (D. Colo. 2006) held 24 C.F.R. § 1000.318 invalid, later reversed in Fort Peck II by the Tenth Circuit.
- Congress enacted the 2008 Reauthorization Act, amending § 4152(b) to treat units as ineligible once conveyed or lost, but with carve-out for actions filed by November 2008.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in this court on November 26, 2008, asserting money damages under NAHASDA for allegedly overfunded or recaptured grants.
- The court must resolve whether the claims are jurisdictionally cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims, and if so, whether the relief sought is money damages or declaratory/prospective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fort Peck is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 | Fort Peck’s damages claim was pending in district court until final resolution on appeal. | Fort Peck’s action remains pending due to ongoing appeal; section 1500 bars duplicative suits. | Fort Peck’s claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 1500. |
| Whether NAHASDA money-mandates this court’s jurisdiction | NAHASDA’s mandatory funding provisions compel payment to qualifying tribes. | Bowen v. Massachusetts limits jurisdiction for grant subsidies; district court may be proper for ongoing relationships. | NAHASDA creates money-mandating jurisdiction; this court may hear money damages claims. |
| Whether § 4161 and § 4161(d)(4) divest this court of jurisdiction | Claims arise from procedural rights under §§ 4161/4165; circuit court review exclusive. | § 4161 provides exclusive review; but not a complete divestment of Tucker Act jurisdiction. | § 4161 does not divest this court of jurisdiction; second claim dismissed. |
| Whether the court can review 24 C.F.R. § 1000.318 for validity | Regulation potentially invalid under NAHASDA; damages depend on validity. | Review of regulation should await merits; not threshold jurisdictional issue. | Court has jurisdiction to address regulation validity as tied to money damages. |
| Anti-Deficiency Act mootness and statute of limitations | Funds remain in program; judgment fund available; not moot. | Funds exhausted or redistributed; mootness applies. | Anti-Deficiency Act does not bar claims; statute of limitations bars FY1998–2002 claims; remaining years viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Peck Housing Auth. v. United States Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Colo. 2006), 435 F.Supp.2d 1125 (D. Colo. 2006) (Fort Peck I; NAHASDA regulatory validity discussion; district court ruling reversed on appeal.)
- Fort Peck Housing Auth. v. United States Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 367 Fed. Appx. 884 (10th Cir. 2019), 367 Fed.Appx. 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (Fort Peck II; Tenth Circuit affirmed HUD regulation framework.)
- Jachetta v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 277 (2010), 94 F.Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (Section 1500 pendency analysis; appeal as pending action.)
- City of Boston v. United States Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 898 F.2d 828 (1st Cir. 1990), 898 F.2d 828 (1st Cir. 1990) (Review implications under administrative review schemes.)
- Biltmore Forest Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. United States, 555 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009), 555 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Exclusive circuit-review jurisdiction analysis under an agency scheme.)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988), 487 U.S. 879 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (Limits on money-mandating grants versus ongoing relationships.)