United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation
2011 U.S. LEXIS 3366
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- The Tohono O’odham Nation is federally recognized and holds land in southern Arizona totaling about 3 million acres.
- The Nation filed two parallel actions based on fiduciary duty violations concerning Nation lands/assets: one against federal officials in district court, and a second against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC).
- The CFC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 1500; the Federal Circuit reversed, finding two suits pending on the same claim if they share operative facts and relief overlap.
- The district court suit alleged fiduciary breaches and requested equitable relief, including an accounting; the CFC suit sought monetary damages for the same trust assets and duties.
- The Court held that § 1500 bars the CFC action where the suits are based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of relief sought, remanding for proceedings consistent with this ruling.
- Justice Kagan did not participate; Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred in judgment, expressing a narrower view that Keene controls but urging consideration of remedial options to avoid duplicative relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1500 bars the CFC action when there is a common factual basis with a pending action elsewhere | Nation: common facts suffice to bar CFC jurisdiction under Keene. | Government: require both factual overlap and overlapping relief for bar. | Yes; two suits are for or in respect to the same claim if based on substantially the same operative facts. |
| What constitutes 'for or in respect to' the same claim under § 1500 | Keene requires some overlap in facts and relief to bar. | Remedial overlap not needed; factual overlap alone suffices. | Factual overlap alone (substantially the same operative facts) bars CFC jurisdiction, regardless of relief. |
| Do the Nation’s two actions substantially overlap in operative facts | Both suits involve the same trust assets and fiduciary duties. | There is a distinction in forum and relief; not enough overlap. | Yes; operative facts are substantially identical, triggering § 1500. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (defines 'for or in respect to' based on substantial overlap of facts and relief)
- Casman v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 647 (1956) (two actions with different relief but same facts may be non-preclusive)
- Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc; preserves Casman principle re: relief forms)
- Tecon Engineers, Inc. v. United States, 343 F.2d 943 (1965) (earlier view on §1500 applicability when first action precedes in CFC)
- Matson Navigation Co. v. United States, 284 U.S. 344 (1932) (historical basis for preclusion between suits against government)
- Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948) (preclusion/materiality principles used to compare claims)
- Corona Coal Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 537 (1924) (illustrates duplicative relief across forums)