Lee v. Thornton

Background

A group of people who were stopped by Border Patrol after crossing from Canada without using a customs station challenged parts of the customs laws that led to seizure of their vehicles, fines, and procedures for reducing those penalties. They asked a federal court for a declaration that the laws were unconstitutional, an order to stop enforcement, return of money paid, and damages. A three-judge district court took the case, said it had power under the Tucker Act, rejected the constitutional claims, and handled some relief while leaving damages to a single judge.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Tucker Act lets district courts issue injunctions or declaratory orders against the Government about customs penalties, or whether it only permits money damages. The Court explained that the Tucker Act authorizes suits for money against the United States but does not give district courts the authority to grant injunctive or declaratory relief. Citing earlier decisions, the Court concluded the three-judge court should not have been convened and therefore could not properly decide the requested injunctions on constitutional grounds. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ request to proceed without fees, vacated the district judgment, and sent the case back for the district court to consider any other legal bases for jurisdiction.

Real world impact

The ruling means people challenging customs forfeitures cannot rely on the Tucker Act to get court orders stopping enforcement; they must identify other legal grounds to seek injunctive relief. The case was not decided on the merits of the customs rules and may proceed on alternate jurisdictional theories.