Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 73-2184.
Decision Date | 28 June 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 73-2184.,73-2184. |
Citation | 499 F.2d 1095 |
Parties | PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE OF INDIANS v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Interior, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Lawrence E. Shearer, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Wallace H. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Carl Strass, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellant.
Robert S. Pelcyger, Boulder, Colo., with whom David H. Getches, Boulder, Colo. was on the brief, for appellee. L. Graeme Bell, III, Washington, D.C. also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before McGOWAN and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges, and WEIGEL* United District of California.
Appellant Secretary of the Interior seeks reversal of a District Court order awarding the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by its attorneys in connection with the Tribe's successful litigation challenging the Secretary's issuance of a regulation establishing the basis for determining the amount of water to be provided the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 354 F.Supp. 252 (D.D.C.1973). In response to the Tribe's subsequent motion for the States District Judge for the Northern award of attorneys' fees and other attorneys' expenses, the District Court ordered appellant to pay the Tribe fees and expenses totaling $106,197.31, which the Tribe was to disburse to its attorneys. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 360 F.Supp. 669 (D.D. C.1973). The single issue presented with respect to this latter ruling is whether the District Court had authority to make the award.
The underlying litigation giving rise to the award began as an action by the Tribe against both the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General. The services of the United States Attorney, whose duty to represent Indian tribes under 25 U.S.C. § 175 has been interpreted to be discretionary, see e. g., Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. Escondido Mutual Water Co., 459 F.2d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1972), were "unavailable" to the Tribe in this case, Pyramid Lake Tribe, supra, 360 F.Supp. at 671; and it employed private counsel.
As the District Court recognized, the general rule is that "in the absence of a statute directly authorizing it, courts will not give judgment against the United States for costs or expenses." United States v. Worley, 281 U.S. 339, 344, 50 S.Ct. 291, 293, 74 L.Ed. 887 (1930). This rule was codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which previously provided that the United States would be liable for fees and costs "only when such liability is expressly provided for by Act of Congress." Act of June 25, 1948, Pub.L. No. 80-773, 62 Stat. 973.
In 1966, Congress amended the statute to authorize a more liberal grant of costs against the Government. No such liberalization was, however, made in respect of legal fees and expenses. The present statute reads, in relevant part: "Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a judgment for costs, as enumerated in Section 1920 of this title but not including the fees and expenses of attorneys may be awarded to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or any agency or official of the United States acting in his official capacity. . . ." Examination of the legislative history of the present section reveals, as the statute itself indicates, that the congressional failure to alter the general rule governing the award of attorneys' fees was hardly an oversight. Then Attorney General Katzenbach, in a covering letter submitting the draft bill for Senate consideration, observed that the bill "makes it clear that the fees and expenses of attorneys may not be taxed against the United States." S.Rep. No. 1329, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1966), U. S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 2531. The Senate Judiciary Committee, in addition to reprinting the Katzenbach letter in its report, observed that the "costs referred to in the section do not include fees and expenses of attorneys." Id. at 3, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 2529.
It is thus plain, and this court en banc recently so stated, that the District Court is without general power to award attorneys' fees against the United States. The Wilderness Society et al. v. Morton, 495 F.2d 1026 (D.C. Cir., 1974) at 1036. See also National Resources Defense Council, et al. v. EPA, 484 F.2d 1331, 1332, 1334-1335 (1st Cir. 1973); Cassata v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp., 445 F.2d 122, 125 (7th Cir. 1971). Absent direct statutory authority, award of such fees against the Government is not possible.
The District Court, while recognizing its general lack of authority to award such fees,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mattwaoshshe v. United States
...D.C. Circuit has found that this provision "impose[s] only a discretionary duty of representation," Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton , 499 F.2d 1095, 1097 (D.C. Cir. 1974). See also Siniscal v. United States , 208 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir. 1953) (explaining that § 175 "is not ma......
-
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno
...court has already recognized that the statute "impose[s] only a discretionary duty of representation." Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 499 F.2d 1095, 1097 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1351, 43 L.Ed.2d 439 (1975). Pyramid Lake rejected a tribe's claim ......
-
Shannon v. US DEPT. OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOP.
...legislative authorization. Alyeska, supra, 421 U.S. at 269, 95 S.Ct. at 1627, 44 L.Ed.2d at 159; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 499 F.2d 1095, 1096 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1351, (1975); see United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.......
-
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society 8212 1977
...not be taxed against the United States.' Id., at 4, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1966, p. 2531. See Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 499 F.2d 1095 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1351, 43 L.Ed.2d 439 (1975). Without departing from this pattern......
-
Fulfilling the executive's trust responsibility toward the native nations on environmental issues: a partial critique of the Clinton administration's promises and performances.
...354 F. Supp. 252, 256-57 (D.D.C.) (mem.), modified on other grounds, 360 F. Supp. 669 (D.D.C. 1973), rev'd in part on other grounds, 499 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert denied, 420 U.S. 962 (1975); Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Indian L Rep. (Am. Indian Law. Training Program) 3065, ......
-
Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.
...Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252, 255 (D.D.C. 1972), modified on other grounds, 360 F. Supp. 669 (D.D.C. 1973), rev'd in part on other grounds, 499 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The D.C. Appellate Court agreed with the Tribe's claim that a regulation promulgated by the Department of the Interior deli......
-
Chapter 11 Tribal Sovereignty, Environmental Justice and NEPA in Natural Resource Development on Indian Lands
...v. Morton, 354 F. Supp. 252, 256 (D.D.C. 1973), modified on other grounds, 360 F.Supp. 669 (D.D.C. 1973), rev'd in part on other grounds, 499 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962 (1975). [90] United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. at 110.[91] Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 10......
-
LAWYERING THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT.
...Mattwaoshshe v. United States, 557 F. Supp. 3d 28, 38 (D.D.C. 2021) (citing Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 499 F.2d 1095, 1097 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). The one reported case to the contrary is Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Wilson, 987 F. Supp. 804 (N.D. Cal. 1997). Weirdly, the codi......