Document: 482 U.S. 64 107 S.Ct. 2246 96 L.Ed.2d 51 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.William HOHRI, et al. No. 86-510. Argued April 20, 1987. Decided June 1, Syllabus Title 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2) gives the United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit exclusive appellate jurisdiction over a variety cases involving Government in which District Court's was based, "in whole or part," on 1346(a)(2), Little Tucker Act, "except that an appeal case brought district court under [the Tort Claims Act (FTCA) ] . shall be governed by" provisions vesting regional Courts Appeals. Respondents, Japanese-American organization and individuals, suit seeking damages declaratory relief tangible intangible injuries suffered when, during World War II, removed approximately 120,000 Japanese-Americans from their homes placed them internment camps. Jurisdiction based FTCA. The concluded all claims were barred, but reversed dismissal certain claims. held it, rather than Circuit, had appeal. Although noting generally grants appeals nontax claims, Congress did not intend to hear such when they also included FTCA Held: appropriate has court's decision "mixed" raising both claim claim. Pp. 68-76. (a) Section clearly establishes only claim, However, 1295(a)(2)'s language does address is thus inherently ambiguous this point. 68-69. (b) Given ambiguity, more plausible reading Solicitor General's view section's "except" clause merely describes do suffice create jurisdiction, that, thus, must heard if are joined with fall within its jurisdiction. proximity except "granting" at beginning suggests clause's failure repeat granting part" phrase characterizing accidental. Moreover, description excepted tax by reference basis "the claim" directed one multiple Respondents' contention indicates fail presence renders inapplicable otherwise persuasive. it some force, respondents' argument, ultimately comparison clauses §§ 1295(a)(1), attenuated rests simply variation between own clauses. 69-71. (c) comprehensive statutory framework, every legislative history's strong expressions need judicial uniformity area, seems likely would have rendered explicit any intended exceptions. 71-73. (d) Also unpersuasive argument congressional intent deprive evidenced Report statement appeals, because frequently involve application state law, continue courts appeals. When viewed as whole, history centralized determination predominate adjudication 73-76. 251 U.S.App.D.C. 145, 782 F.2d 227 (CADC 1986), vacated remanded. POWELL, J., delivered opinion Court, other Members joined, SCALIA, took no part consideration case. BLACKMUN, filed concurring opinion, post, p. 76. Charles Fried, Sol. Gen., Washington, D.C., petitioner. Benjamin L. Zelenko, respondents. Justice POWELL Court. 1 In we decide court—the Appeals—has (FTCA). 2 * During Respondents 19 individuals—former internees representatives. They action Columbia, incident. on, inter alia, 1346(a)(2),1 FTCA, 1346(b). barred either sovereign immunity applicable statute limitations. 586 F.Supp. 769 (1984). 3 appealed Columbia Circuit. That Act. (1986). First, It noted But Id., 157-158, F.2d, 239-241. On merits, limitations begin run until 1980, created Commission Wartime Relocation Internment Civilians. 171, 253. Chief Judge Markey, sitting designation pursuant 291(b), dissent, disagreeing jurisdictional analysis well 174-175, 256-263. A petition rehearing en banc denied 6-to-5 vote. 753 233, 793 304 Bork, four judges, dissent denial petition, he disagreed conclusions. 233-234, 304-313. 4 Because potentially broad impact Appeals' importance question, granted Government's writ certiorari. 479 960, 454, 93 401 We conclude therefore merits decision.2 II 5 1982, passed Improvement creating Among things, Government. 1295(a)(2). Specifically, provides: 6 "The jurisdiction— 7 8 "(2) final part, section 1346 title, 1346(a)(1), 1346(b), 1346(e), 1346(f) title 1346(a)(2) [related federal taxes] sections 1291, 1292, 1294 title." 9 This two undisputed propositions relevant 1346(a)(2). Second, Appeals—in case, Circuit—has 10 presents situation specifically addressed Resolution problem turns interpretation second subsection, so-called clause." General contends Thus, argues, if, By contrast, respondents contend Circuit's claims.3 11 As always, " 'starting point construction itself.' Kelly v. Robinson, 36, 43, 353, 357, 216 (1986) (quoting Blue Chip Stamps Manor Drug Stores, 421 723, 756, 95 1917, 44 539 (1975) (POWELL, concurring)). Unfortunately, noted, see Mottaz, 476 834, 848-849, n. 11, 106 2224, 2233 90 841 (1986), could expressed adding word "solely" clause, provided solely 1346(b) should Or, broader meaning urged respondents, added akin providing employed neither these alternatives, left task determining include 12 our view, natural. 1295(a)(2), later same paragraph. wording Also, instance claim." See (providing taxes]" (emphasis added)). claim; strains apply clause. 13 rely heavily preceding paragraph statute, 1295(a)(1). provides 14 "of 1338 arising relating copyrights trademarks 1338(a) [appealed appeals]." 15 Like subsection (a)(2), (a)(1) Judicial Code, governing types section. note deals mixed cases. face applies "and claims." argue words claims" (a)(2) different scope requires us read into intentionally omitted. 16 persuaded. Neither proffered readings can remove ambiguity inherent statute. textual argument—based 1295(a)(1) 1295(a)(2)—is itself. While carefully drafted avoided problems, find difficult assume inadvertent. B 17 ambiguous, particularly decision. motivating concern "special nationwide uniformity" areas law. S.Rep. 97-275, (1981) (hereinafter 1981 Senate Report), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 12; 96-304, (1979) 1979 Report). Reports explained: "[T]here law reach inconsistent decisions issue, although rule may fairly clear—courts unevenly faced facts individual cases." Report, 3, 13; 9. designed provide "a prompt, definitive answer legal questions" areas. 11; 1. Nontort against present principal sought uniformity. decided confer "all contract defendant." H.R.Rep. 97-312, 18 House Report); 96-1300, (1980) 1980 Report).4 For most unambiguously effectuates goal. $10,000 1491(a)(1). Decisions appealable 1295(a)(3). less (i.e., claims) These so long related taxes, (3). conspicuous feature arrangements creation framework expect exception been made explicit, inferences drawn loose language. C Despite evident desire uniform inferred supporting judgment, statement, thrice repeated Reports, "[b]ecause State those will appeals." 30; 42; 34. evidences whenever presented context whole. 20 indicate saw affirmative national cases, perceived outweighed oft-noted rejected idea patent "specialized court" incapable deciding general issues.5 decides questions Constitution statutes arise There reason believe exempt relatively common tort average already-broad docket.6 Third, thought state-law issues sufficient override centralization logically issues, just FTCA.7 preclude questions, even example, 1338. allowed refutes demanded 21 reasons, hold presenting III 22 vacate judgment Appeals, remand court, instructions transfer 1631. 23 ordered. 24 SCALIA 25 concurring. 26 I join judgment. so, however, full assurance satisfaction. 27 three reasons my concern. first consequent element further delay roots already decades old. issue probably back once again months years hence. forced construe model craftsmanship. Surely, able make utilized here. hoped look set forth precise terms conclusion mixed-claims kind. My third administrative one. am somewhat surprised concerned fact designated sit presently goes off, involves his concluding right do—and today vindicates—the take position favoring "appearance" troubling. wonder why what measure embarrassment refraining assign him, judge "opposite" Unless purposeful (in order panel views judges courts), observe complement fill seat three-judge panel. limited nontort exceeding $10,000. C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Practice Procedure 3657, 284-288 (2d ed. 1985). decentralized 'give persons having comparatively small amounts bring suits districts where witnesses reside without subjecting expense annoyance litigating Washington.' 274 King, 119 398, 403 (Alaska 1954)). With minor exceptions, similar regard amount certiorari, 86-298, review aspects resolution 86-510 entire grant 86-298 parties nor suggested bifurcating transferred remain agree bifurcation inappropriate. discusses case," strongly parts single go courts. least bifurcated raised result inefficient commitment resources Cf. Atari, Inc. JS Group, Inc., 747 1422, 1438-1440 (CAFed.1984) (en banc) (rejecting cases). course, covers money "founded upon Constitution, Congress, regulation executive department, liquidated unliquidated sounding tort." Eastport S.S. Corp. States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 605-606, 372 1002, 1007-1008 (1967) (discussing noncontractual liability Act). described "such approach being imperative avoiding undue specialization system." 6, 16; 13. conception jurisdiction: "[I]t varied docket spanning range handle plus government case[s] matters now considered [Court Customs Patent Appeals] Claims—cases contain wide issues. "This rich assures work proposed diverse narrowly specialized. lack exposure problems. subject matter new sufficiently prevent special interest dominating it." 19; 17. familiar mitigated considerably tried before local who Indeed, judge's question usually reviewed great deference. E.g., Railroad Comm'n Pullman Co., 312 496, 499, 61 643, 644, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941) (review Court); Alabama Elec. Cooperative, First National Bank, 684 789, 792 (CA11 1982) Appeals). re McLinn, 739 1395, 1400 (CA9 1984) (de novo certainly clear competent determinations development supports interpretation. enacted, lists five Its original version listed 1346(a)(1). S. 677, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 735(a) (1979). Under bill, addition eventually gave it) 1346(e) (f), tax-related Subsequent amendments theory, bill reflected there claims; subsequent complete reversal viewpoint harm implicitly originally determined circuits, render think somewhere history. Our posit sharp undocumented swing viewpoint. centralized. Subsequently, adjudicated adequately Nothing suggests, important bar

Category: 8