Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. USA
716 F.3d 535, 2013 WL 1984423, 43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20119 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Property rights that are explicitly made subject to pre-existing governmental authority to manage natural resources, such as water levels for flood control, cannot form the basis of a claim for a constitutional or statutory violation when that authority is exercised, unless the plaintiff pleads specific facts showing the government exceeded its authority or provided constitutionally inadequate process.
Facts:
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ('Corps') operates the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control ('C&SF Project'), which manages water levels in the Everglades.
- The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida ('Tribe') holds rights to use 'Reservation Land' and 'Leased Land' located within the project's Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA 3A).
- The legal agreements granting the Tribe these land rights, including a Lease Agreement ratified by the Florida Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1982 (FILCSA), state that the Tribe’s rights are subject to the Corps's authority to manage water levels.
- To protect the endangered Cape Sable seaside sparrow as required by the Endangered Species Act, the Corps operates under an Interim Operational Plan (IOP) that requires closing the S-12A water-control gate from November 1 to July 15, which can trap water and flood tribal lands.
- In June 2008, a fire in the sparrow's habitat caused the Corps to delay the scheduled July 15 opening of the S-12A gate by nine days to allow vegetation to regrow.
- In October 2008, the Tribe observed extremely high water levels and requested that the Corps keep the S-12A gate open past its scheduled November 1 closure date to alleviate flooding.
- The Corps denied the Tribe's request, citing its obligations under the IOP to protect the sparrow and stating it was unaware of any new threat to the Tribe's health or safety not already considered in the plan.
Procedural Posture:
- The Miccosukee Tribe filed a four-count complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a federal trial court.
- The Corps filed a motion to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim for relief.
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss Counts I (FILCSA violation), II (Due Process), and III (Mandamus).
- The District Court denied the motion to dismiss Count IV (Equal Protection).
- Following discovery, the Corps moved for summary judgment on the remaining Count IV.
- The District Court granted the Corps's motion for summary judgment, entering a final judgment for the Corps on all claims.
- The Miccosukee Tribe, as appellant, appealed the dismissal and the summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the Corps as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' water management operations, which cause flooding on tribal lands, violate the Miccosukee Tribe's property and constitutional rights under the Florida Indian Land Claims Settlement Act and the Fifth Amendment, when the agreements granting those rights explicitly subordinate them to the Corps's pre-existing authority to manage water levels?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, Circuit Judge
No. The Corps's water management operations do not violate the Tribe's rights because the very legal instruments that grant the Tribe its land interests explicitly subordinate those interests to the Corps's authority to manage water levels. The complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief because it contained only vague and conclusory allegations. For the FILCSA claim, the Tribe failed to allege facts showing how the Corps's actions exceeded the scope of the authority and easements it retained. For the Due Process claim, although the Tribe possesses a constitutionally protected property interest, it failed to allege what process was due or how the existing process was constitutionally inadequate. Finally, the Equal Protection claim failed because it was too vague and ambiguous to state a cause of action, lacking specific allegations of disparate treatment of similarly situated parties or discriminatory intent.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs challenging governmental actions that affect their property rights when those rights were acquired subject to pre-existing, explicitly reserved governmental authority. It highlights that a general claim of harm is insufficient; a plaintiff must plead specific facts demonstrating that the government exceeded its reserved authority. The ruling also underscores the strict pleading standards established by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, dismissing claims that rely on conclusory statements rather than plausible factual allegations, particularly for complex constitutional claims like procedural due process and equal protection. The case serves as a cautionary tale for litigants, showing that property rights are defined by their limitations and that courts will enforce those limitations when clearly articulated in statutes and agreements.
