St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States
916 F.3d 987
| Fed. Cir. | 2019Background
- In April 2009 NRCS and St. Bernard Parish executed an EWP Cooperative Agreement under which NRCS agreed to reimburse 100% of certain emergency watershed work costs (estimated ~$4.3M) upon St. Bernard’s submission and approval of reimbursement requests.
- St. Bernard contracted with Omni for sediment removal at Bayou Terre Aux Boeufs; the actual removed cubic yards were far below the original estimate, producing disputes over invoiced amounts.
- NRCS reimbursed St. Bernard partial amounts after review and requested additional documentation to justify higher rates; it withheld $355,866.21 pending supporting documentation.
- St. Bernard sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act seeking the withheld reimbursement; the government moved to dismiss arguing the Cooperative Agreement did not create Tucker Act contract jurisdiction and that administrative remedies applied.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (and alternative merits reasoning); on appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed but on different grounds: Congress’s statutory scheme requires administrative exhaustion before the USDA’s National Appeals Division (NAD) and directs judicial review to federal district courts, thereby displacing Tucker Act jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over St. Bernard’s reimbursement claim | St. Bernard: Tucker Act permits money-damages suit against U.S.; can bring claim in Court of Federal Claims | U.S.: 1994 Agric. Reorg. Act requires exhaustion before NAD and provides for district-court review, displacing Tucker Act jurisdiction | Held: Tucker Act jurisdiction displaced; Court of Federal Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether St. Bernard was required to exhaust administrative remedies before suing | St. Bernard: exhaustion not required here (government waived, no final adverse decision, or agency failed to give required notice) | U.S.: exhaustion is required by statute and regulations; NRCS action constituted an adverse decision (including de facto refusals) | Held: exhaustion required; NRCS letter constituted an adverse decision or at least gave rise to NAD appeal rights; exhaustion and district-court review are the proper path |
| Whether NRCS’s February 23, 2015 letter was a final adverse decision triggering appeal rights | St. Bernard: letter was not a final decision, so no NAD appeal rights arose | U.S.: letter effectively withheld payment and sought documentation; statute/regulations treat failure to act as an adverse decision | Held: treated as adverse decision for purposes of NAD appeal rights (agency inaction can be adverse decision) |
| Remedy for alleged failure to give statutory notice of appeal rights | St. Bernard: lack of notice excuses exhaustion and permits Tucker Act suit | U.S.: failure to give notice would not redirect forum; it would permit equitable tolling to allow NAD appeal | Held: notice defect (if any) would excuse delay and permit administrative appeal, but would not allow bypassing the congressionally specified district-court review; court must follow statutory review path |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 569 U.S. 513 (Supreme Court) (comprehensive remedial schemes can displace Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (Supreme Court) (statutory remedial schemes displace Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (Supreme Court) (carefully circumscribed statutory forum preempts Tucker Act)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (Supreme Court) (administrative/ judicial schemes can displace Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (Supreme Court) (courts must address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (Supreme Court) (jurisdictional limits are for courts to enforce)
- Alpine PCS, Inc. v. United States, 878 F.3d 1086 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act displaced by comprehensive administrative review scheme)
- Pines Residential Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. United States, 444 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir.) (Medicare Act’s review scheme preempts Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (Federal Crop Insurance Act placed exclusive review in district courts)