Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

23 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

than money damages” based on an allegation that federal 
officials have “acted or failed to act” as the law requires.  5 
U. S. C. §702.

This  Court’s  decisions have  long  recognized  that  claims 
for equitable relief in federal district court operate under a 
distinct framework than claims for money damages brought
in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Acts.  In 
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206 (1983) (Mitchell II ),
for  example,  the  United  States  argued  that  the  Court 
should not allow an action for damages under the Tucker 
Acts to proceed because the plaintiffs could have brought a 
separate “actio[n] for declaratory, injunctive, or mandamus
relief against the Secretary” in federal district court.  Id., at 
227.  This Court agreed with the government’s assessment 
that  the  plaintiffs  could  have  brought  a  claim  like  that—
even  as  it  went  on  to  hold  that  they  were  free  to  bring  a 
damages action under the Tucker Acts framework too.  Ibid. 
Lower courts have appreciated all this as well.  As they
have observed, nothing in the Tucker Acts or our decisions
applying them “impl[ies] that [Tribes] are not [separately] 
entitled  to  declaratory  or  injunctive  relief ”  under  other 
laws  or  treaties  and  the  traditional  framework  described 
above.  Cobell v. Norton, 240 F. 3d 1081, 1101 (CADC 2001); 
see also Loudner v. United States, 108 F. 3d 896, 899 (CA8 
1997).  Consistent with this approach, they have frequently 
allowed Tribes to bring freestanding claims seeking to en-
force treaty obligations—including water-related ones.  See, 
e.g., Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Morton, 354 
F. Supp. 252, 256 (DC 1973) (requiring the Secretary of the 
Interior  to  “justify  any  diversion  of  water  from  the  Tribe 
with  precision”);  see  also  Northwest  Sea  Farms,  Inc.  v. 
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 931 F. Supp. 1515, 
1520 (WD Wash. 1996) (“In carrying out its fiduciary duty,
it is the government’s . . . responsibility to ensure that In-
dian  treaty  rights  are  given  full  effect”).    The  cases  the 
Court relies on simply do not enter the picture.