LEE ET AL.
v.
THORNTON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE, ET AL.
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.
The Court held that the Tucker Act does not grant jurisdiction for injunctive or declaratory relief, only for damages.
Appellants challenged customs laws after their vehicles were seized for failing to pass through a customs station. They sought declaratory judgments, …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Customs Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Appellants brought actions in the District Court for the District of Vermont that challenged the constitutionality, facially and as applied, of various provisions of the customs laws, 46 Stat. 717 and 757, as amended, 19 U.
S. C. §§ 1460 and 1618, that mandate procedures to effect forfeiture and remission or mitigation of penalties imposed after Border Patrol agents apprehended them and seized their vehicles when they crossed the border from Canada without passing through a customs station. The complaints sought (1) declaratory judgments that the challenged provisions were unconstitutional, (2) injunctions against their enforcement, (3) mandamus relief requiring the return of moneys paid as mitigated forfeitures or penalties based on violations of the customs laws, and (4) damages. A three-judge court was convened. The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.
S. C. § 1346 (a)(2), rejected appellants’constitutional claims, enjoined appel-lees from applying the customs laws except as construed by the court, declined to remit appellants’ fines, and returned to the single-judge District Court the question of damages.
The District Court held that it had jurisdiction of the complaints under the Tucker Act, and did not address other alternative bases of jurisdiction asserted in the complaints. The jurisdiction of the district courts under the Tucker Act over “[a]ny . . . civil action or claim against the United States . . . founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress . . .” does not include jurisdiction over appellants’ claims to enjoin enforcement of the challenged provisions of the customs laws. The Tucker Act empowers district courts to award damages but not to grant injunctive or declaratory relief. Richardson v. Morris, 409 U. S. 464 (1973); United States v. King, 395 U. S. 1 (1969); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 589-591 (1941).
It follows that the three-judge court was improperly convened, and this Court therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal based on the District Court’s refusal to grant injunctive relief founded on appellants’ additional constitutional claims. Appellants’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded for consideration of appellants’ other asserted bases of jurisdiction.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976)…y judgments. Cited in support of all this were Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, 557 (1962) (Harlan, J.) (plurality opinion); United States v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1 (1889); and United States v. Alire, 6 Wall. 573, 575 (1868). See Lee v. Thornton, 420 U. S. 139 (1975); Richardson v. Morris, 409 U. S. 464 (1973); United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 589-591 (1941). The Tucker Act, of course, is itself only a jurisdictional statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the Unite…
-
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (U.S. 1988)…ted States v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1 (1889). The reason for the distinction flows from the fact that the Court of Claims has no power to grant equitable relief . . . .” Richardson v. Morris, 409 U. S. 464, 465 (1973) (per curiam); see Lee v. Thornton, 420 U. S. 139, 140 (1975) (per curiam) (Tucker Act jurisdiction empowers courts “to award damages but not to grant injunctive or declaratory relief”); United States v. King, 395 U. S. 1, 3 (1969) (relief the Claims Court can give is “limited to actual, presently…
-
Sheehan v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv., 619 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980)…he suit; it had power to hear the dispute and to award monetary relief pursuant to section 1346(a)(2). Section 1346(a)(2) does not, however, confer subject matter jurisdiction on the district court to award nonmonetary cure. E. g., Lee v. Thornton, 420 U.S. 139, 95 S.Ct. 853, 43 L.Ed.2d 85 (1975); Jones v. Alexander, 609 F. 2d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 1980).10 The source of that power must be found in other statutes. IV. General Federal Question Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1976)11 confers subject matter…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941)
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1969)
- Richardson v. Morris, 409 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1973)