HAWAII
v.
GORDON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Hawaii sued the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to compel him to reconsider his interpretation of the Hawaii Statehood Act and to convey 203 acres of federally-owned land in Hawaii to the state, but the Supreme Court dismissed the action on the ground that it constituted a suit against the United States itself, which cannot be maintained without the United States' consent.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
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. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, seeking to obtain ah 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 requésted would require the Director’s official affirmative action, affect the public administration of government agencies and causé 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.
Mb. Justice White, took no part in the consideration or-decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (45 total)
-
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984)…-492 (1887); Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711, 720-723, 727-728 (1883). Thus, “[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.” Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U. S. 57, 58 (1963) (per curiam). And, as when the State itself is named as the [*102] defendant, a suit against state officials that is in fact a suit against a State is barred regardless of whether it seeks damages or injunctive relief. See Cory v. White,…
-
Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1976)…ty, since his claims for promotion would necessarily involve claims against the Treasury: “A suit against an officer of the United States is one against the United States itself 'if the decree would operate against’ the sovereign; Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U. S. 57, 58 . . . (1963) [,] or if ‘the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration,’ Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731, 738, . . . (1947); or if the effect of the judgment would be [*827] ‘t…
-
States Marine Lines, Inc. v. Shultz, 498 F.2d 1146 (4th Cir. 1974)…Cir. 1971). In concluding that this suit was in essence against the United States and thus barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the court below relied upon the test of sovereign immunity set forth by the Supreme Court in Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 83 S.Ct. 1052, 10 L.Ed.2d 191 (1963); Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 83 S.Ct. 999, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963); Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643, 82 S.Ct. 980, 8 L.Ed.2d 168 (1962); and Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Corporation, 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457,…
Previewing 3 of 45 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Larson v. Dom. & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1949)
- Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1963)
- Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1962)
- Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1906)