Prairie County, Montana v. United States
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5462
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- PILT (31 U.S.C. §§ 6901–6907) directs Interior to pay local governments for lost tax base and related costs, with two statutory formulae to compute payments.
- The applicable § 6906 (2006) states that “necessary amounts may be appropriated” and that “Amounts are available only as provided in appropriation laws.”
- For multiple years (including FY 1998–2004 and FY 2006–2007) Congress appropriated less than the aggregate statutory PILT formulas would require; Interior prorated payments by regulation when appropriations were insufficient.
- Greenlee County previously sued for unpaid PILT (FY 1998–2004); the Claims Court dismissed and this court affirmed, holding § 6906 limits liability to appropriations (Greenlee Cnty. v. United States, 487 F.3d 871).
- Plaintiffs (Prairie County, MT and Greenlee County, AZ) sued for FY 2006–2007 shortfalls, arguing the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramah (Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter) changed the law; the Claims Court dismissed, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 6906 limits the government’s PILT liability to amounts appropriated by Congress | Ramah and Cherokee Nation show that “subject to availability of appropriations” does not limit liability when appropriations can cover an individual claimant; plaintiffs argue Greenlee was wrongly decided | Ramah concerns government contracts (ISDA); PILT is a statutory benefit, not a contract, and § 6906’s language limits liability to appropriations | The court affirmed Greenlee: § 6906 (2006) limits liability to appropriations; Ramah does not compel a different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenlee Cnty. v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (held PILT liability limited to appropriations under § 6906)
- Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181 (2012) (held government must honor contractual obligations under ISDA despite limited lump‑sum appropriations)
- Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005) (treats ISDA obligations as contractual for recovery of contract support costs)
- Lawrence Cnty. v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. No. 40-1, 469 U.S. 256 (1985) (describes PILT purpose and discretionary nature of payments)
- Star-Glo Assocs., LP v. United States, 414 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (distinguishes benefits programs from contracts when assessing effect of appropriations on liability)
- United States v. Langston, 118 U.S. 389 (1886) (historical example addressing statutory payment and appropriation interplay)