The State of Hawaii filed this original action against the
Director of the Bureau of the Budget under Art. III, § 2, of the
Constitution, seeking to obtain an order requiring him to (1)
withdraw his advice to federal agencies that § 5(e) of the Hawaii
Statehood Act, which provides for the conveyance to the State of
land "no longer needed by the United States," does not apply to
lands obtained by the United States through purchase, condemnation
or gift; (2) determine whether a certain tract of land in Hawaii
acquired by the United States through condemnation was "needed by
the United States"; and (3) convey this land, if not needed, to
Hawaii.
Held: the complaint is dismissed, because this is a
suit against the United States, which has not consented to the
maintenance of such a suit against it. Pp.
373 U. S.
57-58.
Complaint dismissed.
PER CURIAM.
Section 5(e) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, 73 Stat. 4, 48 U.S.C.
(Supp. II, 1960), pp. 1257-1261, provides that, within five years
from the date Hawaii is admitted to the Union, federal agencies
having control over land or properties retained by the United
States under § 5(c) and (d) of the Act shall report to the
President as to the
"continued need for such land or property, and, if the
President
Page 373 U. S. 58
determines that the land or property is no longer needed by the
United States, it shall be conveyed to the State of Hawaii."
The President designated the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget to perform his functions thereunder. The Director
thereafter, pursuant to an opinion of the Attorney General, 42
Op.Atty.Gen. (No. 4), concluded, and so advised federal agencies,
that the lands referred to in § 5(e) do not include lands obtained
by the United States through purchase, condemnation, or gift, but
are limited to lands which at one time belonged to Hawaii and were
ceded to the United States or acquired in exchange therefor.
Hawaii filed this original action against the Director, under
Art. III, § 2, of the Constitution of the United States, seeking to
obtain an order requiring him to withdraw this advice to the
federal agencies, determine whether a certain 203 acres of land in
Hawaii acquired by the United States through condemnation was land
or properties "needed by the United States," and, if not needed, to
convey this land to Hawaii. We have concluded that this is a suit
against the United States, and, absent its consent, cannot be
maintained by the State. The general rule is that relief sought
nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if
the decree would operate against the latter.
E.g., Dugan v.
Rank, 372 U. S. 609
(1963);
Malone v. Bowdoin, 369 U.
S. 643 (1962);
Larson v. Domestic & Foreign
Commerce Corp., 337 U. S. 682
(1949). Here, the order requested would require the Director's
official affirmative action, affect the public administration of
government agencies, and cause as well the disposition of property
admittedly belonging to the United States. The complaint is
therefore dismissed.
Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S.
60 (1906).
Dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.
