Prairie County, Montana and Greenlee County, Arizona v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 194
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Prairie County (MT) and Greenlee County (AZ) are counties eligible for PILT payments alleging shortfalls for FY 2006–2007 (statutory formulas produced larger amounts than actually paid).
- PILT (31 U.S.C. §§ 6901–6907) directs Interior to pay local governments under two formulas and provides funding "available only as provided in appropriation laws." Congress appropriated less than full authorized amounts for 2006–2007; Interior prorated payments.
- Greenlee County previously litigated identical PILT shortfalls; the Court of Federal Claims dismissed and the Federal Circuit affirmed in Greenlee County v. United States, holding PILT liability limited to appropriations and treating PILT as a benefits program, not a contract.
- Plaintiffs filed this suit seeking the unpaid differences and class certification; the government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), relying on Greenlee County and issue preclusion.
- Plaintiffs argued the Supreme Court’s decision in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter changed the law to allow recovery despite appropriation shortfalls; the court concluded Ramah is limited to government contracts and is inapplicable to PILT’s benefits framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PILT creates an enforceable right to full statutory payments notwithstanding insufficient appropriations | Ramah establishes that once Congress appropriates funds for an account, the government cannot avoid paying each beneficiary the full amount due even if the appropriation is exhausted | Greenlee County precedent holds PILT liability is limited by §6906 language "available only as provided in appropriation laws" and PILT is a benefits program, not a contract | Court held Ramah is contract-law precedent and does not disturb Greenlee County; PILT obligations are limited to amounts appropriated, so plaintiffs fail to state a claim |
| Whether Ramah effected a change in law excusing preclusion | Ramah, plaintiffs say, creates a new rule allowing recovery despite appropriation limits | Defendant says Ramah concerns contract obligations and does not overrule Greenlee County | Court held Ramah did not change applicable law for benefits programs; Greenlee County remains controlling |
| Issue preclusion as to Greenlee County (same plaintiff Greenlee County) | Plaintiffs contend different years and intervening law defeat preclusion | Defendant asserts identical issues were litigated and decided in Greenlee County | Court applied issue preclusion and dismissed Greenlee County from this action |
| Class certification request | Plaintiffs seek class certification of similarly situated local governments | Defendant argues certification is moot if substantive claim fails | Court dismissed class certification as moot after dismissing the substantive claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir.) (PILT considered a benefits program; liability limited by appropriation-language)
- Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181 (2012) (Supreme Court held government contractors may recover full contract amounts despite prorated appropriations; focused on contract law)
- Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005) (contracting principles that government is bound to contracts even when lump-sum appropriations are insufficient)