Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle

“Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. . . . Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part.” 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (emphasis added).

After the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) without a fishway requirement, the Tribe alleged violations of Congressional Acts establishing Washington and Oregon Territory, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and Washington nuisance and common law. The lawsuit originated in Washington state court and was removed to federal district court, where it was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. . . . Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part.” 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (emphasis added). Binding precedent indicated that federal courts of appeal have exclusive jurisdiction over objections to FERC orders, such as the one made by the Tribe. The district court was thus correct to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Affirmed.