Summary
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court judgment in a mandamus action brought by an estate seeking to compel the Bureau of Indian Affairs to partition trust land on the Crow Reservation according to a settlement agreement. The panel held that the claim was barred by federal sovereign immunity because enforcing a government contract via mandamus constitutes a suit against the United States, which has not consented to such actions. Consequently, the appellate court directed the district court to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sovereign immunity bars a mandamus action seeking specific performance of a contract with the United States.
- Whether any statute or waiver provides consent to suit for such a mandamus claim.
Holdings
- Sovereign immunity bars federal jurisdiction over the mandamus action because the claim is effectively against the United States and no clear waiver of immunity exists.
Key quotations
“The panel (1) vacated the district court’s judgment in a mandamus action … and (2) remanded for the district court to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (summary)
“Because the Estate seeks to enforce contract rights, the panel concluded that this mandamus suit was brought against the United States and, therefore, is barred absent a clear expression of consent.” (opinion)
Factual background
Jack Halverson owned a fractional interest in Allotment 1809 on the Crow Reservation. After his death, the Estate sought to enforce a settlement agreement with the BIA to partition the land, but the BIA’s deeds left the Estate with a reduced fee interest. The Estate filed a mandamus action to compel the BIA to complete the partition as agreed.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, finding it had fully performed the settlement agreement. The Estate appealed.
Remand instructions
Dismiss the case for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.