No.

15-802
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

RESOURCE INVESTMENT, INC.
AND LAND RECOVERY INC.,
Petitioners,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE CATO INSTITUTE AND THE

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REVERSIONARY
PROPERTY OWNERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN
SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
ILYA SHAPIRO
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 842-0200
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Cato Institute

MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II

Counsel of Record
STEPHEN S. DAVIS
A RENT FOX, LLP
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 857-6000
[email protected]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

263342

A
(800) 274-3321 (800) 359-6859

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
I.

This Court should grant certiorari to

affirm the foundational principle that selfexecuting provisions of our Constitution
cannot be abrogated by statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
A. The Fifth A mendment is a selfexecuting constitutionallyguaranteed right to compensation not
dependent upon any congressional
waiver of sovereign immunity . . . . . . . . . . . .4
B. Cong ress may not abrog at e by
statute a right guaranteed by the
Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

II. Granting certiorari allows this Court to

affirm that Tohono does not (and cannot)
apply to claims in which a person vindicates
a self-executing constitutional right . . . . . . . . . . .9

ii
Table of Contents
Page
III. Certiorari should be granted because
S ec t ion 15 0 0 r a i se s a subst a nt i a l
constitutional question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
A. S e c t i o n 1 5 0 0 i s a j u d i c i a l
emba r rassment , a monument to
cynicism and justifies the conclusion
that the law is an ass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
B. The government wrongly uses Section
150 0 to deny meritorious claims
against the federal government. . . . . . . . . .14
C. W h e n S e c t i o n 15 0 0 a b r o g a t e s
constitutionally-guaranteed rights
this Court cannot avoid its duty to
uphold the Constitution because it
hop e s C on g r e s s m ay s o m e d ay
repeal the offending statute. . . . . . . . . . . . .15
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

iii
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Arkansas Game and Fish Commn v.
United States,
133 S. Ct. 511 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Beers v. Arkansas,
61 U.S. 527 (1857) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Central Pines Land Co. v. United States,
687 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Dico, Inc. v. United States,
48 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Entick v. Carrington,
95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
First English Evangelical Lutheran v.
Los Angeles,
482 U.S. 304 (1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Horne v. Department of Agriculture,
135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Jacobs v. United States,
290 U.S. 13 (1933) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States,
855 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

iv
Cited Authorities
Page
Keene Corp. v. United States,
508 U.S. 200 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States,
27 F.3d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Lynch v. Household Finance Corp.,
405 U.S. 538 (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. 137 (1803) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8, 15
Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v.
United States,
134 S. Ct. 1257 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States,
778 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 10
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States,
148 U.S. 312 (1893) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 7, 16
Olson v. United States,
292 U.S. 246 (1934). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Phelps v. United States,
274 U.S. 341 (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. San Diego,
450 U.S. 621 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 6

v
Cited Authorities
Page
Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States,
261 U.S. 299 (1923) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
535 U.S. 302 (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States,
659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
United States v. Dickinson,
331 U.S. 745 (1947) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
United States v.
James Daniel Good Real Property,
510 U.S. 43 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
United States v. Jones,
132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
United States v. Tohono OOdham Nation,
131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 3, 9, 11
STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . . . . . . . . . . .4
28 U.S.C. 1346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
28 U.S.C. 1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

vi
Cited Authorities
Page
Sup. Ct. R. 37.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
139 CONG. REC. S10, 383 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1993) . . . . . .13
143 CONG. REC. S10, 428-03 (Oct. 6, 1997). . . . . . . . . . . .13
CONG. GLOBE, 40TH CONG., 2D SESS., 2769 (1868). . . . . . . .2
David Schwartz, Section 1500 of the Judicial
Code and Duplicative Suits against the
Government and Its Agents, GEORGETOWN
LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 55, No. 4 (March 1967) . . . . . . . .13
Douglas W. Kmiec, The Original Understanding
of the Takings Clause Is Neither Weak Nor
Obtuse, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 1630 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Emily S. Bremer and Jonathan R. Siegel, Clearing
the Path to Justice: The Need to Reform 28 U.S.C.
1500, 65 A LA. L. REV. 1, 3 (2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11
H. REPT. NO. 105-424, H.R. 992, 105 TH CONG.,
2d Sess. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
J A M E S M A D I S O N (S A U L K . PA D O V E R , e d .),
THE COMPLETE MADISON (1953) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
JA MES W. ELY, JR ., T HE GUA RDIA N OF E V ERY
O THER R IGHT : A C ONSTITU TIONA L H ISTORY
OF PROPERTY RIGHTS (2d ed. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

vii
Cited Authorities
Page
Kenneth Culp Davis, Suing the Government
by Falsely Pretending to Sue an Offi cer, 29
U. CHI. L. REV. 435 (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Payson R. Peabody, et al., A Confederate Ghost
that Haunts the Federal Courts: The Case for
Repeal of 28 U.S.C. 1500, FEDERAL CIRCUIT
BAR JOURNAL, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer 1994) . . . . . . . .13
S. REPT. NO. 105-242, 105TH CONG., 2d Sess . . . . . . . . . .14

1
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1
The Cato Institute is a nonpartisan public policy
research foundation dedicated to advancing the principles
of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government.
This case is important to Cato because it involves
interpretations of complicated statutory schemes that
may undermine constitutional protections for foundational
property rights.
The National Association of Reversionary Property
Owners (NARPO) is a non-profit educational foundation
assisting property owners in the education and defense of
their property rights, particularly ownership of property
subject to railroad right-of-way easements. See, e.g.,
Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 134
S. Ct. 1257 (2014) (NARPO as amicus curiae).

1. No partys counsel has authored this brief in whole or

in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution
intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No
person other than amici, their members, or their counsel made a
monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. See Rule
37.6. Amici curiae provided ten days notice of the filing of this brief
to all parties. See Rule 37.2. Both parties have consented to the
fi ling of this brief and such consents are being submitted herewith.

2
BACKGROUND
In United States v. Tohono OOdham Nation, 131
S. Ct. 1723 (2011), this Court considered 28 U.S.C. 1500,
a Civil War-era statute intended to relieve the United
States from responding to duplicative litigation in multiple
courts. 2 The Tohono majority found that Section 1500
barred the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) from taking
jurisdiction of a matter when another case arising from
the same operative facts was already pending at the
time the case was fi led in the CFC. 131 S. Ct. at 173132. Importantly, Section 1500 was never intended to be
a device allowing the federal government to escape its
lawful obligation by denying persons the ability to pursue
a meritorious claim against the United States.
But, because the CFC is a court of limited jurisdiction
unable to entertain equitable, tort and other claims, the
government has exploited Section 1500 and Tohono as
a procedural device to deny owners whose property the
government has taken the ability to pursue otherwise
meritorious claims. In combination with other provisions of
the Tucker Act, 3 the government is using Section 1500 not
as a shield to avoid duplicative litigation but as a sword to
escape its statutory and constitutional obligations. Judge
Taranto of the Federal Circuit explained that Section
1500 gives rise to a substantial constitutional question.
2. Vermont Senator George F. Edmunds, the sponsor of
Section 1500, explained, The object is to put that class of persons
[bringing claims for confiscated cotton] to their election either
to leave the Court of Claims or to leave the other courts. CONG.
GLOBE, 40 TH CONG., 2D SESS., 2769 (1868).
3. 28 U.S.C. 1346, et seq.

3
Ministerio Roca Solida v. United States, 778 F.3d 1351,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Taranto, J., concurring). Members
of this Court, numerous lower federal judges, senators,
and academics describe Section 1500 as a purposeless
statute that creates a judicial quagmire.4
Resource Investments and Land Recoverys (Resource
Investment)5 petition for certiorari provides this Court
opportunity to cabin Section 1500 and confi rm that this
Courts holding in Tohono applies only to congressionallycreated claims and not to Fifth Amendment takings
claims arising directly under the Constitution. We address
Resources Investments second question, whether Section
1500 can preclude an owners constitutional right to just
compensation guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Court should grant certiorari to clarify the point
that Tohono does not (and cannot) be read to hold Section
1500 bars owners from vindicating their constitutionallyguaranteed right to just compensation. This is because
the Fifth Amendment right of just compensation is selfexecuting and requires no waiver of sovereign immunity.

4. See Argument Section III, infra.

5. The petitioners are two related entities, Resource
Investments, Inc. and Land Recovery, Inc. For convenience we
refer to them collectively as Resource Investments.

4
ARGUMENT
I.

This Court should grant certiorari to affirm

the foundational principle that self-executing
provisions of our Constitution cannot be abrogated
by statute.
A.

The Fifth Amendment is a self-executing

c o n s t it u t io n a l ly- g u a r a nt e e d r i g ht t o
compensation not dependent upon any
congressional waiver of sovereign immunity.

Resource Investments (and every other owners)

right to be secure in their property is one of the primary
objects for which the national government was formed.
In United St ates v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 949 (2012),
this Court recalled Lord Camdens holding in Entick v.
Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765), which provided:
The great end for which men entered into society was to
secure their property.6
To this end, the Fifth Amendment provides: No
person shall *** be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
6. Madison recognized Government is instituted to protect
property of every sort ***. This being the end of government, that
alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every
man, whatever is his own ***. JAMES M ADISON (SAUL K. PADOVER,
ed.), THE COMPLETE M ADISON (1953), pp. 267-68 (remarks published
in NATIONAL GAZETTE, Mar. 29, 1792). See also JAMES W. ELY, JR.,
THE GUARDIAN OF EVERY OTHER RIGHT: A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
OF P ROPERTY RIGHTS (2d ed. 1998).

5
This Court held, In any society the fullness and
sufficiency of the securities which surround the individual
in use and enjoyment of his property constitute one
of the most certain tests of the character and value of
government. Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States,
148 U.S. 312, 324 (1893) (quoted and followed by Olson v.
United States, 292 U.S. 246, 254 (1934)); see also Lynch v.
Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972) ([T]he
dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights
is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have
rights ***. That rights in property are basic civil rights has
long been recognized.); United States v. James Daniel
Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 61 (1993) (an essential
principle: Individual freedom finds tangible expression in
property rights.). Justice Brennan explained:
As soon as private property has been taken,
whet her t h rough for ma l condem nat ion
proceedings, occupancy, physical invasion, or
regulation, the landowner has already suffered
a constitutional violation, and the self-executing
character of the constitutional provision with
respect to compensation is triggered. This
Court has consistently recognized that the
just compensation requirement in the Fifth
Amendment is not precatory: once there is a
taking compensation must be awarded.
San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. San Diego,
450 U.S. 621, 654 (1981).7

7. Brennan, J., dissenting on other grounds (internal citations

and quotations omitted, emphasis added).

6
Justice Brennans view in San Diego Gas was
expressed in a dissent. But in First English Evangelical
Lutheran v. Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315-16 (1987), this
Court affi rmed Justice Brennans view holding the Just
Compensation Clause is self-executing and does not
depend on the good graces of Congress.8
Indeed, decades before San Diego Gas and First
English the Court found:
whether the theory *** be that there was a
taking under the Fifth Amendment, and that
therefore the Tucker Act may be invoked because
it is a claim founded upon the Constitution, or
that there was an implied promise by the
Government to pay for it, is immaterial. In
either event, the claim traces back to the
prohibition of the Fifth Amendment ***.
United States v. Dickinson,
331 U.S. 745, 748 (1947)
(emphasis added).
And, decades before San Diego Gas and First English,
this Court noted the fundamental principle that the Fifth
Amendment allows:
the public to take whatever may be necessary
for its uses; while, on the other hand, it prevents
the public from loading upon one individual
8. See also Douglas W. Kmiec, The Original Understanding
of the Takings Clause Is Neither Weak Nor Obtuse, 88 COLUM. L.
REV. 1630, 1654-1658 (1988).

7
more than his just share of the burdens of
government, and says that when he surrenders
to the public something more and different from
that which is exacted from other members of
the public, a full and just equivalent shall be
returned to him.
Monongahela, 148 U.S. at 325.
(emphasis added)
When the government takes property it has a
categorical duty to pay just compensation. See
Arkansas Game and Fish Commn v. United States,
133 S. Ct. 511, 518 (2012); see also Horne v. Department
of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419, 2429 (2015) (When the
government physically takes possession of an interest
in property for some public purpose, it has a categorical
duty to compensate the former owner, regardless of
whether the interest that is taken constitutes the entire
parcel or merely a part thereof.) (quoting Tahoe-Sierra
Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 323 (2002)).
B. Congress may not abrogate by statute a right
guaranteed by the Constitution.
Because Resource Investments r ight to just
compensation arises directly from the Constitution,
Congress cannot abrogate this right by statute. See
Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13, 17 (1933) (the right
to just compensation could not be taken away by statute
or be qualified by the omission of a provision for interest)
(citing Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S.
299, 306 (1923), and Phelps v. United States, 274 U.S. 341,
343-44 (1927)).

8
This principle goes back to Marbury v. Madison when
Chief Justice Marshall explained:
The powers of the legislature are defined,
and limited; and that those limits may not
be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is
written ***. It is a proposition too plain to be
contested, that the constitution controls any
legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the
legislature may alter the constitution by an
ordinary act. Between these alternatives there
is no middle ground. The constitution is either
a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by
ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary
legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable
when the legislature shall please to alter it. If
the former part of the alternative be true, then
a legislative act contrary to the constitution is
not law: if the latter part be true, then written
constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part
of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature
illimitable.
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. 137, 176-77 (1803).
Congress can neither shield the federal government
from its preeminent constitutional obligation to justly
compensate owners by legislative fiat nor may Congress
abrogate constitutional guarantees by adopting a
legislative scheme that prevents a property owner from
vindicating their constitutional right to just compensation.

9
II. Granting certiorari allows this Court to affi rm
that Tohono does not (and cannot) apply to claims
in which a person vindicates a self-executing
constitutional right.
There is a material difference between vindicating a
constitutionally-established right and a claim to enforce
a congressionally-created entitlement.
Resource Investments appeal provides this Court
opportunity to clarify that its holding in Tohono (which
involved an action dependant upon a congressional waiver
of sovereign immunity) cannot apply to the self-executing
constitutional right to just compensation guaranteed by
the Fifth Amendment.
The majority in Tohono described the category of
actions to which its holding applied as those in which
Congress has permitted claims against the United States
for monetary relief in the CFC, further noting that for
these claims, relief is available by grace and not by right.
131 S. Ct. at 1731 (quoting Beers v. Arkansas, 61 U.S. 527,
529 (1857) (as this permission is altogether voluntary on
the part of the sovereignty, it follows that it may prescribe
the terms and conditions on which it consents to be sued,
and the manner in which the suit shall be conducted)).
But Resource Investments claim is very different.
Resource Investments claim for compensation was not
created by Congress, but arises directly from the Fifth
Amendment. Thus, the governments obligation to justly
compensate Resource Investment is not voluntary and
does not depend upon a separate congressional waiver of
sovereign immunity.

10
III. Certiorari should be granted because Section 1500
raises a substantial constitutional question.
Judge Taranto of the Federal Circuit observed, A
substantial constitutional question would be raised if
federal statutes forced a claimant to choose between
securing judicial just compensation for a taking of
property and pursuing constitutional and other legal
claims that challenge, and if successful could reverse, the
underlying action alleged to constitute a taking. Roca
Solida, 778 F.3d at 1360. Judge Taranto is not alone in his
warning that Section 1500 invites serious constitutional
concerns.
Among all the provisions in the United States
Code Section 1500 is remarkable because it is almost
universally reviled by members of this Court, lower
federal courts, senators, law professors and academics.
These authorities are united in their view that Section
1500 is anachronistic, unfair, confusing, irrational,
purposeless, unjust, and ill-conceived. Section 1500
creates a trap for unwary and unsuspecting citizens
because it is a badly drafted statute, serves no useful
purpose, and creates a judicial quagmire that is an
obstacle to meritorious claims against the federal
government.9
The issue is not whether Section 1500 is a pointless
dysfunctional statute that wreaks havoc and unjustly
denies citizens meritorious claims; everyone agrees
Section 1500 does this. The only question is whether
the Court or Congress should fix this constitutional
9. Quotations and authorities from Emily S. Bremer and
Jonathan R. Siegel, Clearing the Path to Justice: The Need to
Reform 28 U.S.C. 1500, 65 A LA . L. REV. 1, 3, 37-38 (2013).

11
problem. Granting Resource Investments petition for
certiorari allows this Court to address this problem in that
circumstance when Section 1500 purports to abrogate a
persons Fifth Amendment right to be justly compensated.
This Court has previously declined to overturn Section
1500 outright preferring instead to defer to Congress the
task of remedying the wrongs wrought by Section 1500.
See Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 217 (1993).
This Court should however clarify Tohonos application
and hold Section 1500 cannot bar claims arising under
self-executing provisions of our Constitution.
A.

Section 1500 is a judicial embarrassment,

a monument to cynicism and justifies the
conclusion that the law is an ass.10

A report prepared for the Administrative Conference

for the United States notes:
Section 1500 is unfair to plaintiffs suing the
United States. The statute leads to dismissal
of cases for reasons unrelated to their merits,
while serving little valid purpose ***. The
statute has been strongly criticized by judges,
lawyers, and academics. It causes results that
are unjust and irrational. It should be repealed.11
The report continues:
Federal judges have characterized [Section
10. Bremer, supra n.8, at 3.
11. Id. at 4.

12
1500] as a trap for the unwary that has
outlived its purpose. They have characterized
the dismissals Section 1500 compels as neither
fair nor rational and have critiqued the
injustice that often results in the application of
this outdated and ill-conceived statute. They
have referred to Section 1500s awkward
formulation, calling it a badly drafted
statute, and suggested that it would be
salutary to repeal or amend it. They have
criticized the government for using the statute
to lay traps for unsuspecting plaintiffs. One
judge even remarked that the statute would
justify the famous conclusion that the law is
an ass. Scholars have been equally critical
of Section 1500, and have called for its repeal
or reform since as early as 1967. And some
members of Congress have tried to repeal
the statute. These efforts apparently failed
only because the repeal proposal was bundled
with more controversial changes to the CFCs
jurisdiction.12
The report notes [g]overnment lawyers can and do
give sustained attention to contriving technical ways to
defeat plaintiffs *** who are often baffled by the technical
complexities. *** [G]overnment counsel, driven by a
lawyers natural desire to win cases, persuade courts to
create and maintain technical complexities, which they
then use to win more cases.13 Section 1500 has created
12. Id. at 6-7 (footnotes omitted).
13. Id. at 12 (quoting Kenneth Culp Davis, Suing the
Government by Falsely Pretending to Sue an Offi cer, 29 U. CHI.
L. REV. 435, 440-41 (1962)).

13
a jurisdictional quagmire [and] continues to wreak
havoc ***. Few issues in Federal Circuits contemporary
jurisprudence have caused greater confusion for the bench
and bar.14
Justice Stevens called for Congress to repeal Section
1500. The Senate Judiciary Committee found Section
1500 has caused much wasteful litigation over [a]
nonmeritorious issue.15 The Committee concluded that
eliminating Section 1500 would significantly improve the
administration of justice at the [CFC] because Section
1500 today serves no useful purpose and is a serious trap
for the unsophisticated lawyer or plaintiff.16 The Senate
Judiciary Committee said Section 1500 is a purposeless
anachronistic statute:
[O]ver the last century the courts have adopted
procedural rules and doctrines *** which render
section 1500 obsolete. Since it has outlived its
usefulness, and serves primarily as an obstacle
14. Payson R. Peabody, et al., A Confederate Ghost that
Haunts the Federal Courts: The Case for Repeal of 28 U.S.C. 1500,
FEDERAL CIRCUIT BAR JOURNAL, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer 1994), pp. 96,
110. See also David Schwartz, Section 1500 of the Judicial Code
and Duplicative Suits against the Government and Its Agents,
GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 55, No. 4 (March 1967), p. 599.
15. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R.
Ut.), 143 CONG. REC. S10, 428-03 (Oct. 6, 1997) (advocating repeal
of Section 1500). See also Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Howell Hefl in (D. La.), 139 CONG. REC. S10, 383 (daily ed. Aug. 4,
1993).
16. Citing testimony of CFC Chief Judge Loren Smith,
Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims on H.R. 992, House Committee on the Judiciary, H. REPT.
NO. 105-424, H.R. 992, 105 TH CONG., 2d Sess., p. 11.

14
to property rights claimants, the Committee
believes that section 1500 should be repealed.17
Members of the Federal Circuit believe Section 1500
has become a judicial embarrassment, a monument to
cynicism, [and] is now so riddled with unsupportable
loopholes that it has lost its predictability and people
cannot rely on it to order their affairs.18
B. The government wrongly uses Section 1500 to
deny meritorious claims against the federal
government.
Section 1500 was never intended to prevent meritorious
claims, yet the government uses Section 1500 to unjustly
prevent individuals, businesses, and especially Indian
tribes from vindicating otherwise meritorious claims.
See, e.g., Dico, Inc. v. United States, 48 F.3d 1199, 1204
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (denying compensation for environmental
clean-up costs mandated by EPA); Trusted Integration,
Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163-64 (Fed.Cir.2011)
(denying compensation for mineral rights taken because
mining was prohibited due to military bombing); Central
Pines Land Co. v. United States, 687 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2012), (denying compensation for mineral rights taken by
the government).

17. Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, S. REPT. NO. 105-242,

105TH CONG., 2d Sess., p. 17.
18. Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545,
1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (Mayer, J., dissenting); see also JohnsManville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556, 1568 (Fed. Cir.
1988).

15
C.

When Section 1500 abrogates constitutionallyguaranteed rights this Court cannot avoid
its duty to uphold the Constitution because
it hopes Congress may someday repeal the
offending statute.

When a statutory scheme prevents a person from

vindicating his constitutionally-guaranteed right to be
justly compensated this Court must act. While it may be
possible for this Court to defer to Congress the job of fi xing
Section 1500 as applied to congressionally-created claims,
this Court may not defer its duty to limit this statute when
Section 1500 denies an owners constitutional right to just
compensation. Chief Justice Marshall explained this point:
It is emphatically the province and duty of the
judicial department to say what the law is. Those
who apply the rule to particular cases, must of
necessity expound and interpret that rule. If
two laws confl ict with each other, the courts
must decide on the operation of each. So if a law
be in opposition to the constitution; if both the
law and the constitution apply to a particular
case, so that the court must either decide that
case conformably to the law, disregarding the
constitution; or conformably to the constitution,
disregarding the law; the court must determine
which of these confl icting rules governs the
case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution;
and the constitution is superior to any ordinary
act of the legislature; the constitution, and not
such ordinary act, must govern the case to
which they both apply.
Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177-78.

16
Monongahela arose when the United States used
eminent domain to take locks and dams owned and built
by Monongahela Company and also took Monongahelas
franchisee to charge tolls for the use of the lock and dam.
The United States argued that Congress, not the judiciary,
could determine the amount of compensation the United
States would pay for the property it had taken.
This Court rejected this notion and began by noting,
Congress has supreme control over the regulation of
commerce, but if, in exercising that supreme control,
it deems it necessary to take private property, then it
must proceed subject to the limitations imposed by this
fi fth amendment, and can take only on payment of just
compensation. Monongahela, 148 U.S. at 336.
Congress not only took Monongahelas property but
Congress also wanted to say what just compensation it
would pay Monongahela. This Court emphatically rejected
that proposition:
By this legislation congress seems to have
assumed the right to determine what shall
be the measure of compensation. But this
is a judicial, and not a legislative, question.
The legislature may determine what private
property is needed for public purposes; that is a
question of a political and legislative character.
But when the taking has been ordered, then
the question of compensation is judicial. It
does not rest with the public, taking the
property, through congress or the legislature,
its representative, to say what compensation
shall be paid, or even what shall be the rule of

17
compensation. The constitution has declared
that just compensation shall be paid, and the
ascertainment of that is a judicial inquiry.
Monongahela, 148 U.S. at 327.
Our Constitution does not grant Congress authority
to take private property and, in derogation of the Fifth
Amendment guarantee of just compensation, adopt a
statutory scheme that operates to deny an owners ability
to vindicate their right to be justly compensated.
CONCLUSION
The government used Section 1500 to deny Resource
Investment the ability to vindicate its Fifth Amendment
right to be justly compensated. This Court should grant
certiorari and hold that neither Section 1500 nor this
Courts decision in Tohono allow such an abrogation of
constitutional protections.
Respectfully submitted,
ILYA SHAPIRO
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 842-0200
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Cato Institute

MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE, II

Counsel of Record
STEPHEN S. DAVIS
A RENT FOX, LLP
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 857-6000
[email protected]
Counsel for Amici Curiae