Samish Indian Nation v. United States
657 F.3d 1330
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Samish Indian Nation sought federal recognition to obtain program benefits, challenging past denial and treatment before 1996.
- BIA historically used informal and ad hoc recognition lists; Samish was omitted from a 1969 unofficial list despite not being properly recognized.
- Formal procedures for recognition were established in 1978, with recognition not guaranteeing immediate program access without appropriations.
- Samish obtained federal recognition on April 9, 1996, after lengthy proceedings and district-court remand in prior cases.
- In 2002, Samish filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act for damages due to wrongful non-recognition.
- The Court of Federal Claims initially dismissed for lack of money-mandating statutes; Samish appealed narrowing focus to TPA and Revenue Sharing Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the TPA system money-mandating | Samish claims TPA creates fiduciary rights to damages. | TPA is a budgeting mechanism, not a money-mandating statute. | TPA is not money-mandating. |
| Does Revenue Sharing Act provide money-mandating relief | Revenue Sharing Act entitles payment to tribes; basis for damages. | Act insufficiently legislative to impose fiduciary duty limiting damages; but may be money-mandating. | Revenue Sharing Act is money-mandating; provides jurisdiction for damages. |
| Does Anti-Deficiency Act bar recovery for Revenue Sharing Act claims | Defects in funding do not bar damages under Tucker Act; Permanent Judgment Fund can cover gaps. | Anti-Deficiency Act bars awards when appropriations lapse. | Anti-Deficiency Act does not bar; damages may proceed from Permanent Judgment Fund. |
| Jurisdiction of CF Claims for money damages | CF Claims should hear money-mandating claims under Revenue Sharing Act. | CF Claims limited to money-mandating statutes; TPA not such. | CF Claims has jurisdiction over Revenue Sharing Act claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (two-step money-mandating analysis; rights-imposing statutes required)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (fiduciary duty and money-mandating framework considerations)
- Doe v. United States, 100 F.3d 1576 (1996) (text of statute creates entitlement; money-mandating standard)
- Agwiak v. United States, 347 F.3d 1375 (2003) (shall language implies money-mandating entitlement)
- Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (2007) (shall make a payment language as money-mandating)
- National Association of Counties v. Baker, 842 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (revenue sharing funds context and jurisdictional implications)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (trust duties and fiduciary responsibilities in statutory networks)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (2011) (trust relationship defined by statutes; fiduciary implications)