09-846 U.S. v. Tohono O’Odham Nation

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Court of Federal Claims; jurisdiction

Two suits are for or in respect to the same claim, precluding CFC jurisdiction, if they are based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of the relief sought in each suit.

Since 1868, Congress has restricted the jurisdiction of the CFC and its predecessors when related actions are pending else-where. Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U. S. 200, 212, held that two suits are for or in respect to the same claim when they are “based on substantially the same operative facts . . . , at least if there [is] some overlap in the relief requested,” but it reserved the question whether the jurisdictional bar operates if suits based on the same operative facts do not seek overlapping relief. The rule now codified in §1500 was first enacted to curb duplicate lawsuits by residents of the Confederacy who, in seeking to recover for cotton taken by the Federal Government, sued the Government in the Court of Claims and, at the same time, sued federal officials in other courts, seeking tort relief for the same actions. Section 1500’s robust response to this problem bars CFC jurisdiction not only if the plaintiff sues on an identical claim elsewhere, but also if the other action is related but not identical. The phrase “in respect to” does not resolve all doubt as to the bar’s scope, but it suggests a broad prohibition, regardless of whether “claim” carries a special or limited meaning.

559 F. 3d 1284, reversed and remanded.

09-846 U.S. v. Tohono O’Odham Nation

Kennedy, J.; Sotomayor, J., concurring; Ginsburg, J., dissenting.

Full Text