Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorney

Related Cases

State of Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 83 S.Ct. 1052, 10 L.Ed.2d 191

Facts

Hawaii sought an order from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to withdraw his advice that lands obtained by the United States through purchase, condemnation, or gift were not subject to conveyance to the state if no longer needed. The Director, following an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that the lands in question did not include those obtained through such means, leading Hawaii to file this original action to determine the status of a specific tract of land acquired through condemnation.

Hawaii filed this original action against the Director, under Art. III, s 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.

Issue

Whether the State of Hawaii could maintain an action against the Director of the Bureau of the Budget regarding the conveyance of lands obtained by the United States.

We have concluded that this is a suit against the United States and, absent its consent, cannot be maintained by the State.

Rule

A suit nominally against an officer is, in fact, against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter, and such a suit cannot be maintained without the sovereign's consent.

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.

Analysis

The court determined that the requested order would require the Director to take official action that would affect the administration of government agencies and the disposition of property belonging to the United States. Therefore, the action was deemed a suit against the United States, which lacked the necessary consent for the case to proceed.

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.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the action could not be maintained against the Director without the consent of the United States.

The complaint is therefore dismissed.

Who won?

The Director of the Bureau of the Budget prevailed because the court found that the action was effectively against the United States, which had not consented to the suit.

The Supreme Court held that the action was a suit against the United States and, absent its consent, could not be maintained by state.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Ash v. United States, 170 Fed.Cl. 761

Fine v. State, 312 So.3d 1057, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D548

People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908

Brady v. United States Capitol Police, 200 F.Supp.3d 208

State ex rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix, 124 Ariz. 543, 606 P.2d 33