Slattery v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1759
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- FDIC allegedly breached merger/contracts with the acquiring bank to avert Western Savings Bank failure; damages awarded by the Court of Federal Claims; Slattery and Roth/Interstate Properties sued the United States; en banc review focused on Tucker Act jurisdiction over FDIC breaches; prior panel Slattery II held jurisdiction; government contends FDIC is a nonappropriated fund instrumentality and not within Tucker Act; en banc reinstates Slattery II with modified reasoning and remands for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Tucker Act jurisdiction extend to breach-of-contract claims against the FDIC regardless of funding source? | Slattery argues jurisdiction lies because the FDIC entered contracts on behalf of the United States. | FDIC is a NAFI; funding source and lack of appropriation withdraw Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Yes; jurisdiction exists unless explicitly withdrawn by statute. |
| Does the 1970 amendment to the Tucker Act limit jurisdiction to enumerated NAFIs (military/NASA exchanges) only? | Legislation was meant to restore access, not narrow broadly. | Amendment narrowed NAFI scope to enumerated entities. | No; the amendment is a narrow exemption, not a broad exclusion. |
| Is the FDIC a NAFI under Hopkins/Standard Oil standards, thus barring Tucker Act claims in the Court of Federal Claims? | FDIC not subject to Tucker Act because it does not rely on appropriated funds. | FDIC operates as a self-funded instrumentality, thus outside Tucker Act. | FDIC is a NAFI; claims against it for breach of contract are not cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims. |
| Does the FDIC's sue-and-be-sued provision affect Tucker Act jurisdiction? | A district-court remedy exists, but not dispositive of Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Sue-and-be-sued does not nullify Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Sue-and-be-sued does not remove Tucker Act jurisdiction. |
| Does the Judgment Fund or funding source control Tucker Act jurisdiction? | Judgment Fund can be used to pay judgments, preserving jurisdiction. | Judgment Fund limitations align with Kyer and may bar jurisdiction for some entities. | Funding source does not control jurisdiction; Tucker Act remains broadly applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Oil Co. of California v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1942) (post exchanges are arms of the government with immunities; government bears no liability for exchange debts in general)
- Hopkins, 427 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1976) (NAFI doctrine clarified; 1970 amendment restored remedy for military exchanges)
- Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1974) (whether Congress withdrew Tucker Act remedy requires unambiguous intent)
- Kyer v. United States, 369 F.2d 714 (Ct.Cl.1966) (NAFI extended beyond military exchanges; Judgment Fund limitation described)
- Furash & Co. v. United States, 252 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir.2001) (NAFI status for Federal Housing Finance Board; self-funding factors)
- AINS, Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1333 (Fed.Cir.2004) (four-factor test for NAFI status; CDA context)
- Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed.Cir.2005) (takings/statutory claims and NAFI doctrine)