Free Supplemental Brief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS __________________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ) ISMAEL JOHN, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) THE PEOPLE OF BIKINI, et al.

No. 06-288C

(Judge Miller)

No. 06-289L (Judge Miller)

P A N IF ' O N R SPONSE TO L I TF S J I T E T EC U TSJ N 62007 ORDER H O R' U E ,

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 2 of 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ISSUE ............................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 4 I. II. JUDGE HARKINS'RULING WAS CORRECT: THE TAKINGS CLAUSE APPLIES. ...................... 4 S THE COURT SHOULD NOT REVISIT JUDGE HARKINS'RULING. .......................................... 9 S

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 11

-i-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 3 of 14

INTRODUCTION I i odr a d ue ,07t C ut i c d h pre t" pt tl d psi nt redt Jn 620, e ord et t a i o a o n ay i oiv s e h r e e ts e il s t e i u t th pre hv nteadesd S eicl , e orodr bi i o t s eh t a i ae o ytdr e. pc i l t C ut re d r f g fh s a e ts s " f ay h e en e following issues: 1. Their understanding and characterization of the doctrine of the law of the case as

iap e t Jde a i 'hl nsn tplso ug H r n s o i iJuda v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 441 (1984) ("ua " i ks dg Jd I). See, e.g., Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983) (finding that law of case is applied at court'd c t n n "os o l it tbnl pw r ; s i r i ad de nti th r ua s o e )Chiu v. United States, 948 F.2d s eo m ei ' " 711, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (finding no legal error when predecessor judge reexamined an issue on remand considered by original trial judge not considered by appellate court). 2. C s l ad t r u ac o t soe fuiar i o Jde a i ' aea n o e gi ne nh cp o j c le e fug H r n s w h d e di vw ks

determination that the Marshall Islanders were granted the protections of the Bill of Rights in Juda I at 456-68. In Juda I t cut e t th "rt t n o t Bill of Rights are conveyed h orhl h t po cos fhe e d a e ei tt Ma hlIadrb t fr o t C ntu o ad u ss m o gvrm n "Id. at oh e r a s ne yh oc fh ost i n oryt f oe et s ll s e e e itn e n . 458. Supplemental briefing revealed that defendant reargued the issue in front of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the Consolidated Brief of Appellee the United States, People of Enewetak v. United States, Nos. 888-1206, 888-1207, 888-1208, (Fed. Cir. June 2,98,e nat oe td m sapln 'ai s lm o t gon t th Ff 418)df dnm vdo i i peat t n c i s n h rud h t ih e s s l s kg a e a e t A ed et j to pnao c ue os oet d o izn o t U id aos rs m nm n su cm est n l s de ntx n t ci s fh n e N t n Tut ' s i a e te e t i Territory for the Marshall Islands. The Federal Circuit did not reach this issue in People of Enewetak v. United States, 864 F.2d 134 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Reconsider i o Jde a i ' ao fug H r n s tn ks decision may be appropriate insofar as he held that the Marshall Islanders were granted the protections of the Bill of Rights in Juda I at 456-58.

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 4 of 14

As plaintiffs show in this memorandum, Judge Harkins was correct in ruling that plaintiffs could invoke the Takings Clause as wards of the United States who were subject to its power of eminent domain. Juda I, 6 Cl. Ct. at 458; Turney v. United States, 115 F. Supp. 457 (Ct. Cl. 1953); Porter v. United States, 496 F.2d 583 (Cl. Ct. 1974); Langenegger v. United States, 756 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Antolok v. United States, 873 F.2d 369, 378 (D.C. Cir. 18)p i isr ey o a "no pna d rndqa l cm est t i ii t 99 (ln f 'e d frn ucm est o i euty o pna d a n sn h a tf m e a e e kg e Ca s or ) Moevrt r hs en o lm C ut . r e h e a be n change in the applicable law or facts that would i " o ,e justify revisiting that issue in this continued litigation. El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States,7 F d 3615 (e. i 20)dcn g t hl a t gvrm n ak, 38 . 14,32 FdCr 04 (el i " o ,sh oe etss 3 . in o d e n that the Takings Clause does not protect the interests of nonresident aliens whose property is located in a foreign country unless they can demonstrate substantial voluntary connections to the U id te" See generally Banks v. United States, __Fed. Cl. __ 2007 WL 1300768, *3 n e Sa s) t t . (Fed. Cl. May 3, 2007) (discussing law of the case doctrine). Before addressing these issues more fully, plaintiffs note that defendant ­ having argued unsuccessfully before Judge Harkins and the Federal Circuit that the plaintiffs could not invoke the Takings Clause ­ not renewed that argument in its motions to dismiss. The issue has has therefore been waived for purposes of RCFC Rule 12(b)(6) and should be considered later only if raised by defendant in its answer and in a motion for summary judgment or at trial.1

1

To be sure, the Court is obliged to address defects in subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, but the viability of p i istakings claims is not a jurisdictional issue. The complaints allege ln f ' a tf claims for money damages based on contracts and the Takings Clause, both of which fall within t C ut sb cm trui ii . ug H ri t a dh i u a a u 12(b)(6) h ors uj t aej s co Jde a n r t t s e s R le e ' e t rd t n k s ee e s question, not as a question of subject matter jurisdiction. Juda I, 6 Cl. Ct. at 455 (discussing the i u udrh hai "aueo te Ca . . also Juda v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. s e net ed g Fi rtSa a lm " See s e n l t i ) 667, 677 (1987) ( " Juda II"(ln f 'ai s lm "te c i s i i t sb cm tr )p i ist n c i s s t lm wt n h uj t ae a tf k g a ad a h e e t j i ii o t s or" Jde lga o d h gvrm n s hr t i t n fh u s co fh cut) ug Al rnt t oe et ca c r ao o t rd t n i .. e e e n ' a ez i e applicability of the Takings Clause to the Somali-located property of a Somali national as a -2-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 5 of 14

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ISSUE Jde a i r et t gvrm n s o o t d m s iJuda I,, 6 Cl. Ct. at 457-58. ug H r n e c d h oe et m t n o i i n ks j e e n ' i s s See also Nitol v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 405, 416 (1985), in which Judge Harkins confirmed that the Juda I oi o "oc dd hth j to pnao c ue fh Ff A ed et ol p i cnl e t t u cm est n l s o t ih m nm nw u nn u a e s i a e t d extend to include a taking that resulted from the United States nuclear testing program in the Ma hlIad"ad r a s ns;n Juda II,3 l t t9,ti t tthe facts alleged, if accepted as s ll 1 C. . 61s t gh " C a an a true, are sufficient to state a claim for a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment within t T ceA tui ii o t cut h ukr cj s co fh or" e rd t n e . A a ae av gon frfr i Jde a i 'sbeun d m s l rebased s n lr t e rud o a i n ug H r n susqet i i aodr tn i fm g ks s s on the Compact, the government devoted pages 55-61 of its Federal Circuit brief to arguing that the Takings Clause did not apply in the Trust Territory. The Federal Circuit did not directly

m tr fs ni " neR F 1() )n aeo "t d g udr C C 2b( i Ashkir v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 438, 439 n.2 t a n 2 (e. l 00,u "eee ]hth btr i it th i us r et a s udr C C FdC. 0)btblv[ t t eev w sh t s e pe n d re ne R F 2 i d a e t e a es s e i 12(b)(4)," h h pld o aueo te c i . w i ap e tf l t s ta lm Id. c i ir a a The Federal Circuit recently discussed the difference between whether a claim is within the cut j i ii (i.e. ht rh cm ln i n f s " oe-m nan" or o r h orsu s co ' rd t n , e et o p i d ti a m ny adt g suc fi t w h e a t e ie i e gs such as a contract or the Takings Clause) and whether it alleges facts sufficient to prevail on the merits (the Rule 12(b)(6) issue). Greenlee County v. United States, 2007 WL 1391389, * 2-3 (Fed. Cir. May, 14, 2007). See also Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1175-76 (Fed. Cir. 20)e bn) " ifm y s b se i [ e ur e ors ae]hth asne f 05 ( ac I si let lhd n t S pe C ut csst t bec o a n . t r ai h m ' a e valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., t cut s t oy r ost i apower t aj i tt cs. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a h ors tu r o cntu o l e ' at itn o d d a h ae u ce e " Better Environment,2 US 8,9 19) T e orcn ne:Ds i afrak fuj t 53 ..38 (98. h C utot ud " i s lo l o sb c i m s c e matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the claim i` i us n a i p ui efr l e b pi dc i s fh Court, or otherwise ss n bt tl m l s l oe o d y r r eio o t s o s a i, a b , c s o sn i cm le dvio m r a ntono e f e lot vr . Id., quoting Oneida Indian o p ty eo f e ts o t i l ae r cn oe y " el d i vv da r s' Nation v. County of Oneida,1 US 6166 17) Icno b a ud hth p i is 44 ..6,6 (94. tant e r e t t ln f ' g a e a tf c i sn h cs a "o p ty eo o m r"n i t fug H ri 'rl g n t lm it s ae r cm le dvi f e ti l h o Jde a n su n adh a i e el d i g ks i e Fdr Cr is e r i t n o tades e nat a u eto apa Ide, i ee l i u 'dt m n i nto dr df dn s r m n n pel nedi s a c t e ao s e ' g s . t hard to imagine that the Federal Circuit would have gone to such lengths to leave open future recourse to t s oriihd en e udd yh gvrm n s ru etaoth h C utfta be pr ae b t oe et a m n bu t i s e n ' g s e applicability of the Takings Clause. See People of Enewetak, 864 F.2d 134, 136 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

-3-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 6 of 14

address that argument in its opinion, but rejected it by implication. People of Enewetak v. United States, 864 F.2d 134, 136-37 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The government did not rely on that argument in its brief in opposition to the petition for a writ of certiorari. ARGUMENT I. J d e akn'R l g s orc te akings Clause Applies u g H ris ui Wa C ret h T s n :

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the payment of just compensation whenever and wherever the United States exercises its power to take private property for a public use. The clause is a limitation on the federal gove m n s o et apor tpi t r et pw ro prpie r a n ' a ve property. As such, the constitutional duty to provide just compensation is necessarily coextensive with the governmental power it restricts. The Takings Clause applies to property taken by the United States that is located outside U.S. borders. Langenegger v. United States, 756 F.2d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (El Salvador); Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 537, 559 n.17 (1999) (U.S. military base in the Azores, Portugal); Turney v. United States, 126 Cl. Ct. 202 (Ct. Cl. 1953) (Philippines); Wiggins v. United States, 3 Ct. Cl. 412 (1867) (Costa Rica). These cases demonstrate that it is the nature of the governmental power being exercised, not the place, that determines whether the Takings Clause requires just compensation. For example, no one would dispute that if the federal government had appropriated an American-owned ship or building located in Bikini or Enewetak that it would owe just compensation to the owner.2 There is no serious question as to whether the Fifth Amendment applies to takings in the Marshall Islands. Cf. Thompson v.

2

The United States conceded in its El-Shifa bi t t [h T k g Cas applies to foreignr fh , t e ai s l e e a "] n u o nd rpr l a d i i t U id te ad o rpr ara o nd y ..izn. w e poe yo t wt nh n e Sa s n t poe y bod w e b US ci s t ce h e t t t te " Brief of Appellee, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Co. v. United States, No. 03-5098, at 37, 2003 WL 24305565 (Fed. Cir.) (citations omitted).

-4-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 7 of 14

Kleppe, 424 F.Supp. 1263, 1268 (D. Hawaii 1976) (allowing U.S. citizens to bring constitutional claim for actions at the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Trust Territory). There is also no serious question about whether the people of the Marshall Islands may seek just compensation from the United States, despite the absence of United States citizenship. The Supreme Court squarely decided that the Takings Clause was not limited to United States citizens in Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931) (resident aliens). If citizens of another nation are entitled to just compensation, then surely wards of the United States are as well. In shr ni et p i isnt nly o t l ao o t poe y ot ehrh ln f ' aoatnrh o t n fh rpr , t e a tf i i e ci e t taken by the United States is an impediment to recovery of just compensation in this Court.3 In Ashkir v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 438 (Fed. Cl. 2000), Judge Allegra acknowledged bteie t t p t n t cnleh l e o at ry .adhr y oc d t t ur s d h e ti " of tt i s fu oi ..n t e cnl eh s t e m ao o a en h t eb u a s ni ogto e of r o nnei n aes lg gh t i o fr g poe y bt t d g uhtb cne e n or d tln aei t a n foe n rpr , u a n rd se i l n e kg i t" cnl e t thrm sb "o e us n acnet n e oc ddh t e ute sm sbt tlonco bt u a e ai i ween the United States and either t c i atrh poe yno e i aai c i . Id. at 440. Judge Allegra derived the h lm no t rpr i l d n t n lm" e a e t vv kg a "us n acnet n"eu e etrml gaen sbt tloncos r i m n f a ug i United States v. Verdugo-Urdiquez, 494 ai i qr o n
3

It should be noted that courts have applied the Takings Clause to takings of property owned by non-US citizens outside the United States. See, e.g., Turney v. United States, 126 Ct.Cl. 202, 115 F.Supp. 457, 464-65 (Ct. Cl. 1953) (applying the Takings Clause to the seizure by the United States of radar equipment located in the Philippines, owned at the time by a Philippine corporation); Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 537, 559 n. 17 (1999) (explaining, in a case involving a Canadian corporation alleging that its property had been taken b at n o t US gvrm nr a d o US " i ue a bs i t A oe, ot a y cos fh ..oe ete t t a ..j n s" i aen h zr P r gl i e n le ot r e s u , t t[h j to pnao c ue a be efr d u i t U id te i sut n i h " ]eu cm est n l s hs en noc otd h n e Sa sn i aosn a t s i a e se e t t t i whi t U id te t e poe y btu n,n h f to t s aet th c i w s c h n e Sa sa s rpr , u rl go t a s fh cs, at lm a h e t t k t" i e c i h e a not yet ripe because the corporation had not exhausted its administrative remedies); Anderson v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 341 (1985) (recognizing that the United States may be liable for taking property in a foreign country when it has the requisite control); Gasser v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 476 (1988) (ruling that Mexican citizen in Baja California, Mexico, was entitled to recover compensation under the Taking Clause for actions by the U.S. government that resulted in taking of subterranean flowage easement in his Mexican lands), judgment vacated after approval of stipulated settlement, 22 Cl. Ct. 165 (1990).

-5-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 8 of 14

U.S. 259, 271 (1990), a case involving constitutional tort claims by a Mexican citizen regarding atocrn iMei . i p i ish kh cut aa s i Ashkir was flawed, c cur gn x o Wh e ln f t n t ors nl i n s i c l a tf i e ' ys nothing in Ashkir (or Verdugo-Urdiquez) asn qet n ug H ri 'rl gn cl i o uso Jde a n su n i Juda I. l t i ks i See 46 Fed. Cl. at 444 and n. 12 (discussing and distinguishing Juda). T e n e Sa s l r hd sbt tloncos tt Tut e i r o t h U id te c a y a "us n acnet n"o h rsT rt y fh t t el ai i e ro e Pacific Islands, which it administered pursuant to statute and treaty, and to the residents of the Trust Territory, who were wards of the United States. Ralpho v. Bell, 569 F.2d 607, 619 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (holding the Due Process Clause applicable to the Trust Territory); Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (describing Ralpho a t an " c ns a ii sr t g Mi oei sft ei r a w rae i r o t U id te" n i r i n "s uh m r a sb c a t s i e t roy fh n e Sa s ad t e d t a m c A e cn uj t sh en e rt e t t s se s i es o t A e cn e i r s) Sm l l t C ut f lm asm d hth T k g Cas h m r a t roi " i ir , e oro Ca s s e t t ai s l e e i rt e . ay h i u a e n u applied to Saipan as part of the Trust Territory in Fleming v. United States, 352 F.2d 533 (Ct. Cl. 1965). And in Castro v. United States, 500 F.2d 436 (Ct. Cl. 1974), the Court awarded just cm est n o t U id te' s ad cuac f m14 t 16 o l d n a a o pnao frh n e Sa sue n ocpny r 94 o 98 fa i Si n i e t t o n p owned by rsT rt y izn. l og i p i isv wt T k g Cas ap e t Tut e i r ci s At uh n ln f ' i h ai s l e plso ro te h a tf e e n u i U.S. takings regardless of the location of the property or the nationality of the owner, there is no need for this Court in this case to define the outer limits of the Takings Clause because this case fs o fr b wt n h "us n acnet n"etpld n i cm ot l i i t sbt tloncos t ap e i Ashkir. t ay h e ai i s i The complaints filed in these cases, which must be taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, amplify the factual basis for substantial connections to the United States. In paragraphs 52-54 of the Amended Complaint in the John case, No. 06-289L, plaintiffs explain that President Truman stated in his November 25, 1947 directive ordering the removal of the E e e k ep t thy wlb accorded all rights which are the normal constitutional rights nw t pol h t " i e a e a e l

-6-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 9 of 14

o ci n udrh C ntu o. John Amended Complaint, ¶ 53; Exhibit C. On December fiz s net ost i " te e itn 5, 1947, this commitment was reconfirmed by Admiral Ramsey, who summarized the obligations of the Un e Sa s y ti t tt i ain o t [nw t ] t l ol b id te b s t gh " en b at fh E e e k a lw u e t t an a h h t s e a o d acre t nr acntu oar h ac i t US ci n udrh cntu o. John coddh om lost i li t cr n o ..iz s net ost i " e itn g s u g te e itn Amended Complaint, ¶ 54; Exhibit D. The Amended Complaint in the People of Bikini, No. 06-288C, explains further that the U id te s t i 14 t tt a " e o c o t U id te t t . . [Trust Territory] n e Sa s te n 97 h iw s t ply fh n e Sa sh . t t ad a h i e t t a owners of private property required for public use shall be properly compensated for the loss of property takn People of Bikini Amended Complaint, ¶ 41, and that the United States told the e, " U.N. Security Council that: My Government feels that it has a duty towards the people of the trust territory to govern them with no less consideration than it would govern any part of its sovereign territory. It feels that the laws, customs and institutions of the United States form a basis for the administration of the trust territory compatible with the spirit of the Charter. For administrative, legislative and jurisdictional convenience in carrying out its duty towards the peoples of the trust territory, the United States intends to treat the trust territory as if it were an integral part of the United States. People of Bikini Amended Complaint, ¶ 42, quoting from U.N. Security Council Off. Rec., 116th Meeting, March 7, 1947, at 473, as reprinted in 1 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 778 (1963) (emphasis added). This Court can safely disregard the so-cld Isl css w i cne e t ae " u rae, h h ocr d h l n a " c n e application of various procedural rights in criminal cases in U.S. territories, as these cases cannot be reconciled with more recent decisions that make it clear that the Constitution does not stop at t w t 'eg. Ashkir, 46 Fed. Cl. at 440-41 nt ght[h view of the Constitution h a r de See e es 4 (o n t " ]i i a t s was largely repudiated by Reid v. Covert,5 US 16 15) ( t nlit n bi e) See 34 .., (97" i e acao ar gd. )nr ti d also Torres v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 475-76 (1979) (Brennan, J.,

-7-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 10 of 14

concurring, joined by Stewart, Blackmun and Marshall, JJ.). At the time the Insular cases were decided, the Supreme Court had not yet decided that most of the procedural protections of the Bill of Rights applied to state criminal prosecutions under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is not surprising that the Court was reluctant to extend to non-citizens in the territories the constitutional protections in local criminal cases that were not then extended to citizens in state prosecutions in the United States. The cases before this Court concern only the Takings Clause and thus present no occasion to consider the applicability of procedural safeguards in nonexistent criminal prosecutions by the United States in the Marshall Islands, in any event. Some of the confusion about the applicability of the Takings Clause also undoubtedly results from efforts to recast injuries inflicted by the United States in the course of military action against hostile groups as takings. Both El-Shifa, which involved the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan because of Al-Queda links, and Ashkir, which involved the U.S. military occupation of Somali property during military operations in Mogadishu under UN auspices, are illustrative. See Ashkir, 46 Fed. Cl. 445 n.13 (reserving whether a taking was alleged); El-Shifa, 378 F.3d at 1355-61 (discussing applicability of Takings Clause to enemy property). Takings ­ even for military purposes ­ by definition, a lawful exercise of are, sovereign power, not acts of war. But the people of Bikini and Enewetak were wards of the United States, not enemies, and their property was under U.S. control. Moreover, their property was taken for the important public purpose of developing the arsenal that contributed to the U id te'vn av t ynh C l Wa T e c i so just compensation are thus no n e Sa seet l io i t o t t u cr e d r hi lm fr . ra different in principle from the claims of the factory owners whose property was taken by the government during World War II. E.g., Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (1949); accord Argent v. United States, 124 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (military overflights).

-8-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 11 of 14

II.

T e o rS o l N t eit u g H ris R l g h C ut h ud o R v iJ d e akn' ui s s n

As this Court stated at the April 23 oral arguments on the motions to dismiss, these cases are continuations of the claims that were suspended while the plaintiffs exhausted the remedies available to them under the Compact Section 177 Agreement. The doctrine of the law of the case is designed to bring order and finality to litigation and is related to the doctrines of res judicata or claim preclusion and of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion. Each of these doctrines requires courts to adhere to decisions made in earlier, related litigation between the parties. The rationale of the law of the case doctrine applies here with just as much force as if the cases had the same captions as Peter and Juda from the 1980s. Otherwise, the plaintiffs would be penalized by the suspension of their claims while they exhausted remedies before the Nuclear Claims Tribunal. T e ee l i u 'd psi o t People of Enewetak appeal is incompatible with h Fdr Cr is i oio fh a c t s tn e the notion that the plaintiffs could not possibly have a valid takings claim. The status of this issue under the doctrine of the law of the case is thus dramatically different from the status of Judge H ri 'ruling that the John p i ist i s lm w s a e b t s t e fi it n a ns ks ln f 'a n c i a br d yh tu o l ti s a tf k g a r e at m ao which, as the John plaintiffs explained at pages 39-41 of their Opening Memorandum in Opposition, was explicitly not addressed by the Federal Circuit on appeal and hence cannot be binding under the doctrines of collateral estoppel/issue-preclusion or the law of the case. With regard to issues that were fully litigated and addressed on appeal, it would be totally unfair to the Marshallese plaintiffs, and contrary to the purposes of the law-of-the-case doctrine, to require them to re-litigate issues on which they had previously prevailed. This court has explained recently that: The doctrine of law of the case, like stare decisis, deals with the circumstances that permit reconsideration of issues of law. The difference is that while stare decisis is concerned with the effect of a final judgment as establishing a legal -9-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 12 of 14

principle that is binding as a precedent in other pending and future cases, the law of the case doctrine is concerned with the extent to which the law applied in decisions at various stages of the same litigation becomes the governing principle in later stages. Banks v. United States, __Fed. Cl. __ 2007 WL 1300768, *3 (Fed. Cl. May 3, 2007). This opinion ep i t to ecuta bud y eios ae y pea cut a "on xln h l ror r on b dc i m d b aplt or,r bud as a w s e sn le s e by the decree as the law of the case; and must carry it into execution, according to the mandate. That court cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it, even for apparent error, upon any matter decided on appeal; or intermeddle with it . . . . Id., quoting from In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255 " (1895). The only exceptions to this rla " hnhri` ] i oe o nwad ie n u r w e t es[ d cvr f e n d f et e e e 1 s y fr material evidence that was not presented in the prior action, or [2] an intervening change of controlling legal authority, or [3] when the prior decision is clearly incorrect and its preservation w u w r a ai si ute Id., quoting from Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d ol ok m n etn sc. d f j i ' 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2001). None of these justifications for departing from the doctrine of the law of the case is applicable to the rulings of Judge Harkins and the Federal Circuit on appeal that the Marshallese plaintiffs can bring claims for takings of their property that occurred during the trusteeship period. No new evidence has been presented, and such evidence would not be relevant in any event with regard to a motion to dismiss. No new legal authority has emerged, and, in fact, subsequent decisions, as explained above in Section I, recognize the prior rulings related to the Marshall Islanders and do not in any way suggest that they were incorrect.4 The Federal

4

This Court is not bound by the law of the cae i r a t Jde a i 'rl g s wt e r o ug H r n su n h gd ks i concerning the application of the statute of limitations to the people of Enewetak. The controlling legal authority has changed since Judge Harkins ruled, see Applegate v. United States, 25 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Banks v. United States, 314 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003); -10-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 13 of 14

Cr ise slo vr lTurney in El-Shifa, 378 F.3d at 1352, disposes of any argument that i u 'r uat oe u ct f re cagsnh l j ty eos e t n fug H ri 'dc i . o o i t pei s hne it a u i r ni r i o Jde a n s eio F l wn h r o e w sf c d ao ks sn l g e vu ruling of Judge Harkins and the Federal Circuit on this issue would certainly not work a " ai si ute ad h U id te hs eea udht r a Iadrcno m n etn sc, n t n e Sa s a nvrr e t Ma hl s ne ant f j i " e t t g a s ll s invoke the Takings Clause with regard to property losses they have suffered. CONCLUSION Jde a i 'rl ghth p i i could bring claims under the Takings Clause for ug H r n su n t t ln ffs ks i a e at destruction of property was adopted by the Federal Circuit and is consistent with decisions made before and afterwards. Under the doctrine of the law of the case, it thus remains binding and applicable to the present proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jonathan M. Weisgall Jonathan M. Weisgall Jonathan M. Weisgall, Chartered 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036-6812 Telephone: (202) 828-1378 Facsimile: (202) 828-1380 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for People of Bikini Atoll see also Sco 17ao t C m at" neSco 17 fh C m at h U id te et n 7( fh o pc( dr et n 7 o t o pc t n e Sa s i ) e U i e ,e t t Government accepted responsibility for the just compensation owing for loss or damage resulting from i nc at t g rga . People of Enewetak v. United States, 864 F.2d at 135). t ul re i por " s e sn m In light of Applegate and Banks,s e a df dn s cnweg etn et n 7( o a w l s e nat ako l m n i Sco 17a f l e ' d i ) the Compact of its responsibility to compensate the people of the Marshall Islands for harms resulting from nuclear weapons testing, it would also be manifestly unjust to deny the people of E e e k eeo t it i s lm . r vri cn ato h Fdr Cr is nw t r i n h ra n c i s Moe e n ot stt ee l i u ' a lf e kg a o , r e a ct edr m n o Jde a i 'rl ghth T k Clause applies, the Federal Circuit did nos etfug H r n su n t t aings e ks i a e ntnos o ades ug H ri 's t e fi it n rl g oedr rdr Jde a n stu o l ti su n. e s ks at m ao i -11-

Case 1:06-cv-00289-CCM

Document 31

Filed 06/25/2007

Page 14 of 14

Of Counsel: Robert K. Huffman Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 887-4530 Facsimile: (202) 887-4288 E-mail: [email protected] Elizabeth Langer Law Offices of Elizabeth Langer 3712 Ingomar Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20015 Telephone: (202) 244-0456 Facsimile: (202) 244-0456 E-mail: [email protected]

/s/ Davor Pevec Davor Pevec Law Offices of Davor Pevec Bishop Street Tower 700 Bishop Street, Suite 2100 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-5655 Facsimile: (310) 402-5983 E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for plaintiffs in Ismael John

Of Counsel: Jon Van Dyke 2515 Dole Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Telephone: (808) 956-5569 Facsimile: (808) 956-8509 E-mail: [email protected] June 25, 2007

-12-