Michael Sammons v. United States
860 F.3d 296
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michael Sammons, pro se, owns $1 million in noncumulative preferred shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and claims a 2012 amendment diverting profits to Treasury’s senior preferred stock effected a regulatory taking worth $900,000.
- Sammons sued the United States in district court seeking just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
- The government moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing the Tucker Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over takings claims exceeding $10,000 in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC).
- Sammons challenged the Tucker Act as unconstitutional, asserting the Fifth Amendment itself waives sovereign immunity and that takings claims must be heard in an Article III court.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tucker Act’s assignment of takings claims to the CFC (an Article I court) violates Article III | Sammons: Takings Clause is self-executing and waives sovereign immunity; Article III courts must hear the claim | Government: Congress may waive immunity and condition suits; Tucker Act gives CFC exclusive jurisdiction for >$10,000 claims | Held: Tucker Act is constitutional as applied; takings suits against the U.S. can be limited to CFC |
| Whether the Fifth Amendment automatically waives sovereign immunity for takings claims | Sammons: Fifth Amendment self-executes to permit suit in Article III court | Government: No automatic waiver; waiver must be by Congress; historically plaintiffs sought private bills pre-Tucker Act | Held: Fifth Circuit precedent rejects an automatic waiver; waiver is statutory, not self-executing |
| Whether takings claims against the U.S. fall within the "public rights" category permitting adjudication outside Article III | Sammons: Implicitly disputes Congress’s assignment | Government: Such claims are public-rights suits against sovereign, so Congress can set adjudication terms | Held: Court treats takings claims as public-rights suits; Congress may assign them to Article I courts |
| Whether district court had jurisdiction over Sammons’s >$10,000 takings claim | Sammons: District court should hear because of constitutional waiver argument | Government: Tucker Act bars district court jurisdiction for >$10,000 | Held: District court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) (describes category of public-rights matters that Congress may assign outside Article III)
- Ware v. United States, 626 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir. 1980) (held Fifth Amendment does not automatically waive sovereign immunity; Tucker Act limits district court jurisdiction)
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not create substantive rights)
- Chichakli v. Szubin, 546 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognition of CFC exclusive jurisdiction under Tucker Act for >$10,000)
- Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982) (plurality explaining limits on non-Article III adjudication)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (discusses self-executing nature of Takings Clause with respect to inverse condemnation)