Samish Indian Nation v. United States
657 F.3d 1316
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Samish seeks money damages under the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act for wrongful non-recognition and program benefits denied from 1969 to 1996 and after recognition in 1996.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed most claims for lack of jurisdiction due to non-money-mandating statutes and post-hoc limitations.
- On appeal, Samish argues two money-mandating sources: the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) system and the Federal Revenue Sharing Act under the Revenue Sharing Act.
- The panel holds the TPA is not money-mandating and thus not jurisdictionally surgical under the Tucker/Indian Tucker Acts.
- However, the Revenue Sharing Act is money-mandating and the Anti-Deficiency Act does not bar a monetary remedy; the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this holding.
- The case history includes prior Samish litigation establishing wrongful government failure to recognize the tribe and the related damages theory; the current decision resolves only whether the cited statutes support money damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the TPA system money-mandating? | Samish asserts TPA creates enforceable money damages. | Government contends TPA is a budgeting mechanism, not a statute creating entitlement. | TPA not money-mandating; no jurisdiction under Tucker/Indian Tucker Act on TPA claims. |
| Does the Revenue Sharing Act provide a money-mandating basis for damages? | Samish contends Revenue Sharing Act entitles funds to tribes and obligates payment. | Government acknowledges some money-mandating language but argues Anti-Deficiency Act caps payments. | Revenue Sharing Act is money-mandating; allows damages; Anti-Deficiency Act not a bar. |
| Does the Anti-Deficiency Act bar damages or just appropriations? | Samish seeks damages payable from the Permanent Judgment Fund when appropriations lapse. | Anti-Deficiency Act bars expenditure beyond appropriations. | Act does not bar Tucker Act damages; judgment may be paid from Permanent Judgment Fund. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. United States, 100 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (money-mandating test for entitlement language)
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (limits on money-mandating when no fiduciary duty or trust in statute)
- Navajo Nation v. United States, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (two-step money-mandating analysis; rights-imposing duties)
- Navajo I, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (text of statute determines entitlement; fiduciary readings require clear standards)
- Navajo III, 129 S. Ct. 1547 (2009) (text and scope of Indian Tucker Act interpreted; discretion and standards matter)
- Agwiak v. United States, 347 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (language like 'shall be paid' indicates money-mandating)