Court Opinion

ID: 9478173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:42:19.375542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:17.132935
License: Public Domain

STARR, Circuit Judge,
dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which Circuit Judges BUCKLEY, D.H. GINSBURG, and SENTELLE joins:
I would hear this case en banc solely on the question of delay. In my view, the panel’s decision is incompatible with the teachings of the Supreme Court in Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 106 S.Ct. 2957, 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986). Shaw holds that Congress must explicitly waive the no-interest rule in order for the shield of sovereign immunity to be lifted. Shaw specifically rejected the argument that a waiver had been effected by a statute providing that “the United States shall be liable for costs the same as a private person.” Id. 106 S.Ct. at 2961 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (1982)). In addition, Shaw rebuffed the proposition that waiver of sovereign immunity had been effected through use of the term “reasonable” attorney’s fees. Id. at 2964. Finally, Shaw held that policy reasons, “no matter how compelling, [are] insufficient ... to waive this immunity.” Id. at 2965. Implied waivers, in sum, simply do not comport with Shaw’s teaching.
Under these circumstances, the panel’s attempted limitation of Shaw is unavailing. Nor does Pennsylvania v. Delaware Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, — U.S. , 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987), bear on the sovereign immunity question. Quite apart from that ease having nothing to do with the issue of delay, the sovereign there, of course, was the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, whereas the pertinent authorities in this case are federal statutes, triggering the issue whether the United States Congress has waived the immunity enjoyed by the federal sovereign. In my judgment, Shaw commands us to vacate the panel’s award to this limited extent.