Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 565

524US2

Unit: $U94

[09-11-00 13:26:39] PAGES PGT: OPLG

520

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

Opinion of O(cid:146)Connor, J.

Under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1), the Court of
Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to render judgment
upon any claim against the United States for money damages
exceeding $10,000 that is “founded either upon the Constitu-
tion, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an execu-
tive department, or upon any express or implied contract
with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated
damages in cases not sounding in tort.” Accordingly, a
claim for just compensation under the Takings Clause must
be brought to the Court of Federal Claims in the ﬁrst in-
stance, unless Congress has withdrawn the Tucker Act grant
of jurisdiction in the relevant statute. See, e. g., Ruckels-
haus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1016–1019 (1984).

In this case, however, Eastern does not seek compensation
from the Government.
Instead, Eastern requests a declara-
tory judgment that the Coal Act violates the Constitution
and a corresponding injunction against the Commissioner’s
enforcement of the Act as to Eastern. Such equitable relief
is arguably not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Fed-
eral Claims under the Tucker Act. See United States v.
Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 216 (1983) (explaining that, in order
for a claim to be “cognizable under the Tucker Act,” it “must
be one for money damages against the United States”); see
also, e. g., Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 905 (1988).
Some Courts of Appeals have accepted the view that the
Tucker Act does not apply to suits seeking only equitable
relief, see In re Chateaugay Corp., 53 F. 3d 478, 493 (CA2),
cert. denied sub nom. LTV Steel Co. v. Shalala, 516 U. S. 913
(1995); Southeast Kansas Community Action Program, Inc.
v. Secretary of Agriculture, 967 F. 2d 1452, 1455–1456 (CA10
1992), while others have concluded that a claim for equitable
relief under the Takings Clause is hypothetical, and there-
fore not within the district courts’ jurisdiction, until compen-
sation has been sought and refused in the Court of Federal
Claims, see Bay View, Inc. v. Ahtna, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1281,