From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawaii v. Gordon

U.S.
Apr 29, 1963
373 U.S. 57 (1963)

Summary

holding that suit against a federal official to compel official action was a suit against the United States that could not go forward without the federal government's consent

Summary of this case from State v. Cahill

Opinion

ON BILL OF COMPLAINT.

No. 12, Original.

Argued April 15, 1963. Decided April 29, 1963.

The State of Hawaii filed this original action against the Director of the Bureau of the Budget under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution, seeking to obtain an order requiring him to (1) withdraw his advice to federal agencies that § 5(e) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, which provides for the conveyance to the State of land "no longer needed by the United States," does not apply to lands obtained by the United States through purchase, condemnation or gift; (2) determine whether a certain tract of land in Hawaii acquired by the United States through condemnation was "needed by the United States"; and (3) convey this land, if not needed, to Hawaii. Held: The complaint is dismissed, because this is a suit against the United States which has not consented to the maintenance of such a suit against it. Pp. 57-58.

Complaint dismissed.

Bert T. Kobayashi, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Dennis G. Lyons argued the cause for plaintiff. Also on the briefs were Shiro Kashiwa, former Attorney General of Hawaii, Wilbur K. Watkins, Jr., former Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii, Thurman Arnold, Abe Fortas and Paul A. Porter.

Wayne G. Barnett argued the cause for defendant. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, David R. Warner and Thos. L. McKevitt.


Section 5(e) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, 48 U.S.C. (Supp. II, 1960), pp. 1257-1261, provides that within five years from the date Hawaii is admitted to the Union federal agencies having control over land or properties retained by the United States under § 5(c) and (d) of the Act shall report to the President as to the "continued need for such land or property, and if the President determines that the land or property is no longer needed by the United States it shall be conveyed to the State of Hawaii." The President designated the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to perform his functions thereunder. The Director thereafter, pursuant to an opinion of the Attorney General, 42 Op. Atty. Gen. (No. 4), concluded, and so advised federal agencies, that the lands referred to in § 5(e) do not include lands obtained by the United States through purchase, condemnation or gift but are limited to lands which at one time belonged to Hawaii and were ceded to the United States or acquired in exchange therefor.

Hawaii filed this original action against the Director, under Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, seeking to obtain an order requiring him to withdraw this advice to the federal agencies, determine whether a certain 203 acres of land in Hawaii acquired by the United States through condemnation was land or properties "needed by the United States" and, if not needed, to convey this land to Hawaii. We have concluded that this is a suit against the United States and, absent its consent, cannot be maintained by the State. The general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter. e.g., Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963); Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643 (1962); Larson v. Domestic Foreign Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949). Here the order requested would require the Director's official affirmative action, affect the public administration of government agencies and cause as well the disposition of property admittedly belonging to the United States. The complaint is therefore dismissed. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60 (1906).

Dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Hawaii v. Gordon

U.S.
Apr 29, 1963
373 U.S. 57 (1963)

holding that suit against a federal official to compel official action was a suit against the United States that could not go forward without the federal government's consent

Summary of this case from State v. Cahill

holding that "relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter"

Summary of this case from Parker v. N.A. of Letter Carriers

holding suit against federal official to be suit against United States because "relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign [because] the decree would operate against the latter"

Summary of this case from Krieg v. Mills

In Gordon, 373 U.S. at 58, 83 S.Ct. 1052, the Court held that a court could not require the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to withdraw a report advising the federal government regarding which land the United States should retain under the Hawaii Statehood Act.

Summary of this case from Richardson v. Tex. Sec'y of State

applying Dugan and concluding that sovereign immunity barred a suit for specific relief against a federal official

Summary of this case from E. V. v. Robinson

In Gordon, the federal Director of the Bureau of the Budget had advised federal agencies that the United States was not obliged by the Hawaii Statehood Act to convey certain federal land to that State. Hawaii sued the Director, "seeking to obtain an order requiring him to withdraw this advice to the federal agencies, determine whether a certain 203 acres of land in Hawaii... was land or properties `needed by the United States' and, if not needed, to convey this land to Hawaii."

Summary of this case from Vann v. Kempthorne

In Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 83 S.Ct. 1052, 10 L.Ed.2d 191 (1963), the general rule of Dugan v. Rank, supra, was invoked to bar an original action in the Supreme Court against a federal officer.

Summary of this case from Vishnevsky v. United States

In Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58, 83 S.Ct. 1052, 1053, 10 L.Ed.2d 191 (1963), the Court dismissed a suit against the Director of the Budget, seeking to compel him to take certain action with respect to Government land, as being an unconsented suit against the United States since "the order requested would require the Director's official affirmative action, affect the public administration of government agencies and cause as well the disposition of property admittedly belonging to the United States."

Summary of this case from Knight v. State of New York

stating that "[t]he general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter"

Summary of this case from Jones v. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
Case details for

Hawaii v. Gordon

Case Details

Full title:HAWAII v . GORDON

Court:U.S.

Date published: Apr 29, 1963

Citations

373 U.S. 57 (1963)
83 S. Ct. 1052

Citing Cases

Vann v. Kempthorne

See Hagood, 117 U.S. at 69, 6 S.Ct. 608 ("'[A] court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of…

Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E.V.

For example, a State is the real, substantial party in interest if the judgment sought would expend itself on…