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.
