United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation
The Court ruled that a federal law barring the Court of Federal Claims from hearing a claim already "for or in respect to" a pending lawsuit elsewhere applies whenever the two lawsuits share the same underlying facts, even if they seek different remedies.
Because the Tohono O'odham Nation's damages suit in the Court of Federal Claims relied on the same facts as its earlier fiduciary-duty suit against federal officials in district court, the Court held the claims court suit had to be dismissed — a reading that can force plaintiffs to choose between courts even when neither one alone can give them everything they are owed.
“The question thus demands an answer, and the answer is yes.”
The Court resolves the question left open by Keene about whether shared facts alone bar jurisdiction.
How it got here: The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Nation's suit for lack of jurisdiction; the Federal Circuit reversed; the government asked the Supreme Court to review that reversal.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Tohono O'odham Nation, an Arizona tribe with about 3 million acres of trust land, accused federal officials of mismanaging its trust assets \u2014 failing to provide accurate accountings, engaging in self-dealing, and investing imprudently. The Nation sued federal officials in federal district court seeking an accounting and other equitable relief, then sued the United States itself in the Court of Federal Claims the very next day seeking money damages for nearly identical alleged breaches.
The question before the Court
If a tribe sues over the same mismanaged trust assets in two different courts, does having a claim already pending in one court block a related money-damages claim in the Court of Federal Claims, even if the two lawsuits seek different kinds of relief?
The Court's answer
Yes \u2014 the Court ruled that once a plaintiff has a lawsuit pending in one court based on certain facts, a related lawsuit over the same facts in the Court of Federal Claims is automatically barred, even if the two suits seek completely different kinds of relief. What matters is whether the underlying facts substantially overlap, not whether the remedies do.
Because the Nation's district court suit for an accounting and its claims court suit for money damages relied on virtually identical facts about the same mismanaged trust assets, the claims court suit had to be dismissed. The Nation can refile there later, once the district court case ends, as long as the deadline for filing hasn't passed.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Groups and individuals with claims against the federal government \u2014 including tribes managing trust assets \u2014 often need both an equitable remedy like an accounting (available only in district court) and money damages (available only in the Court of Federal Claims). This ruling means pursuing both at once, on the same facts, can now cost them one of the two remedies entirely.
What changes now
The Court of Federal Claims case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction while the Nation's district court suit remains pending. The Nation may refile in the Court of Federal Claims once the district court case ends or is dismissed, so long as the statute of limitations has not run out in the meantime. This is a final merits ruling on the jurisdictional question, though it does not resolve the Nation's underlying fiduciary-duty claims.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether a plaintiff who files in the Court of Federal Claims first, rather than second, could avoid the jurisdictional bar under an older Court of Claims ruling (Tecon Engineers), since that scenario wasn't presented here. It also left open how courts should handle statute-of-limitations concerns for plaintiffs forced to litigate sequentially.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor agreed the Nation's claims court suit should be dismissed, but only because the two suits actually sought overlapping relief — both requested money to remedy the same accounting failures — which was enough under Keene alone. She argued the majority went further than necessary by holding that shared facts alone bar jurisdiction even without overlapping relief, a rule she said wrongly overturns the longstanding Casman exception for plaintiffs Congress requires to split claims between two courts to get complete relief.
Dissent — Justice Ginsburg
“I dissent from the Court’s immoderate reading of 28 U. S. C. §1500 and would affirm the Federal Circuit’s judgment.”Ginsburg's central objection to the majority's broad reading of the jurisdictional bar.
Justice Ginsburg argued the majority's reading is too harsh because it ignores that a claim or cause of action inherently includes the relief sought, not just the facts. She would have preserved the Casman rule protecting plaintiffs who need two courts to get complete relief for a single injury, and suggested the Court could instead direct the claims court to stay the case or let the Nation amend its complaint rather than dismiss it outright.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court read a 1993 precedent, Keene Corp. v. United States, as leaving only two possible readings of the jurisdictional bar: it could require both shared facts and overlapping requested relief, or it could require shared facts alone.
- Comparing the statute's phrase barring claims "in respect to" a pending suit with its separate phrase covering a person acting under federal authority "in respect to" a cause of action, the Court reasoned that the second phrase could only refer to facts (since no relief had yet been requested when the underlying conduct occurred), and concluded the first phrase should be read the same way.
- The Court found that requiring overlapping relief would make little practical sense, since the Court of Federal Claims can generally award only money damages while district courts alone can award equitable relief, so true remedial overlap between the two courts is rare by design.
- The Court tied this fact-based reading to ordinary claim-preclusion principles, which bar repeat lawsuits arising from the same underlying transaction regardless of the specific relief sought in each suit.
- Rejecting the Nation's argument that this reading unfairly forces plaintiffs to choose between partial remedies, the Court concluded that any hardship from incomplete relief is a matter for Congress, not a reason to depart from the statute's text and purpose.
- Applying that fact-based test, the Court found the Nation's two lawsuits described the same trust assets and virtually identical breaches of duty, so the operative facts overlapped substantially enough to trigger the jurisdictional bar.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Keene Corp. v. United States (508 U. S. 200)
The Court builds on Keene's fact-based test and resolves the question Keene had explicitly left open.
Distinguishes Tecon Engineers, Inc. v. United States
The Court noted this ruling about filing order didn't apply since the Nation's claims court suit was filed second.