Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/254/148/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:29:32+00:00

Document:
A foreign steamship company alleged that, under duress practiced by the immigration authorities, it paid bills rendered by them under color of the Immigration Act for maintenance and medical care furnished by the United States to certain immigrants who, after landing from the company's ships, were temporarily detained before being admitted to the country, and it claimed reimbursement under the Tucker Act upon the ground that the exactions were in violation of its rights as an alien subject, secured by the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. Held that the claim, being founded on alleged torts of federal officials, was not within the Tucker Act or the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. P. 254 U. S. 155.
A suit was brought in the Court of Claims by the Holland-American Line to recover from the United States for the cost of the maintenance and medical care furnished by the United States for certain aliens brought by the plaintiff to this country on the steamers of its line which it had been required to pay.
but a complete disruption of oceanic commerce in the port of New York and the United States. "Consequently, the petitioner paid, under duress and involuntarily, the bills when rendered."
It is alleged that the exaction of such payments of the petitioner, and the making of such threats were entirely without warrant of law; that the Immigration Act provides that, where a suitable building is used for the detention and examination of aliens, the immigration officials shall there take charge of such aliens and the transportation companies shall be relieved of the responsibility for their detention thereafter; that there was in the port of New York a suitable building for the detention and examination of aliens; that the Immigration Act required petitioner to pay the United States $4 for each alien entering the Unites states on its vessels; that the aliens whose hospital and maintenance expense bills were rendered to and paid by the petitioner were detained and examined and subsequently admitted to the United States pursuant to the requirements of the Immigration Act; that special appropriations have been made for all expenses of the enforcement of the laws regulating the immigration of aliens into the United States, so that there has always been an available fund in the United States Treasury for the payment of the expenses of regulating the immigration of aliens into the United States, including the hospital bills referred to above.
subsequently reviewed by the circuit court of appeals, and was there affirmed. See 212 F. 116, affirmed by an equally divided court, 235 U.S. 686.
It is further alleged that the exaction from the claimant of the above-mentioned hospital charges under duress was in violation of its rights and privileges secured to petitioner as a subject of the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the Constitution of the United States, by the treaties between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the laws of the United States; that the amounts thus unlawfully exacted from the claimant were remitted to the Commissioner of Immigration at the port of New York, as required by him.
There being no demurrer, plea, answer, counterclaim, set-off, claim of damages, demand, or defense in the premises on the part of the United States, the Court of Claims directed a general traverse under the rules of the court, and afterwards made findings of fact, and, substantially following the decision of the circuit court of appeals, supra, held the United States liable for the payments exacted.
As to the claim that the plaintiff had bound itself by contract to pay these charges, the court held that the claimant was coerced into making the contract by threats of the defendant which would have destroyed the plaintiff's business if ever executed.
The government contends that the claim thus presented was one sounding in tort, and, consequently not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and that the petition should have been dismissed.
upon any regulation of an executive department, upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government of the United States, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect of which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United States either in a court of law, equity, or admiralty if the United States were suable."
We think that the statement of the substance of the petitioner's claim, as above set forth, shows that it rested upon payments alleged to have been made under duress because of the wrongful and tortious acts of officials of the United States government acting without authority of law in coercing the claimant to pay the sums demanded.
In many decisions of this Court, it has been held that, by the provisions of the Tucker Act, the government did not subject itself to liability for the torts or wrongful acts of its officers. Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269; Morgan v. United States, 14 Wall. 531; Hill v. United States, 149 U. S. 593; Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S. 163; United States v. Buffalo Pitts Co., 234 U. S. 228; Tempel v. United States, 248 U. S. 121; Ball Engineering Co. v. White Co., 250 U. S. 46.
"He, however, contends that the Court of Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims ex delicto founded upon the Constitution of the United States. And this, he further contends, is supported by the recent decisions of this Court, and relies especially upon Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S. 222."
"But that case did not overrule Schillinger v. United States, 155 U. S. 163, which, counsel says, holds directly contrary to his contention, and that he has not the ingenuity to suggest how the Court can now decide the case at bar in appellant's favor without at least by implication overruling the Schillinger case. We are not disposed to overrule the case, either directly or by implication. . . ."
"The Dooley case and cases subsequent to it which are relied upon by the appellant concerned the exaction of duties or taxes by the United States or its officers or property taken by the government for public purposes. In such cases, jurisdiction in the Court of Claims for the recovery of the duties and taxes or for the value of the property taken was declared."
case, as was also the Schillinger case. The latter case passed upon the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims in actions founded on tort, and declared the general principle to be, based on a policy by imposed necessity, that governments are not liable (155 U.S., p. 155 U. S. 167) 'for unauthorized wrongs inflicted on the citizen by their officers, though occurring while engaged in the discharge of official duties.' And it was further said (p. 155 U. S. 168):"
"Congress has wisely reserved to itself the right to give or withhold relief where the claim is founded on wrongful proceedings of an officer of the government."
"Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269, 75 U. S. 275; Morgan v. United States, 14 Wall. 531, 81 U. S. 534."
The principle, reaffirmed in the case just quoted, is applicable here, for the reason that the claim presented sounded in tort, and was in substance an action to recover for the wrongful acts of the United States officials in compelling the claimant to pay under duress and without authority of law the sums sued for. Following the well established construction of the Tucker Act, as declared in many cases in this Court, we think that the Court of Claims should have dismissed the petition because it presented a claim not within its jurisdiction. The judgment of the Court of Claims is reversed, and the cause remanded to that court, with instructions to dismiss the petition.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.