REHNQUIST, J., dissenting

467 U. S.

on their own initiative. As we stated in Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U. S. 423, 427 (1971):

"[T]he requirement of affirmative legislative action [was not] an idle choice of words; the legislative history of the 1953 statute shows that the requirement was intended to assure that state jurisdiction would not be extended until the jurisdictions to be responsible for the portion of Indian country concerned manifested by political action their willingness and ability to discharge their new responsibilities."

North Dakota took affirmative legislative action in passing Chapter 27-19, but conditioned its assumption of jurisdiction on tribal consent. Since that consent has not been forthcoming, North Dakota has not assumed any additional jurisdiction over Indian country under Pub. L. 280. See Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S. 463, 499 (1979). North Dakota courts therefore have no authority to unilaterally augment their jurisdiction by entertaining suits either by or against Indians in actions arising on Indian lands. Fisher v. District Court, 424 U. S., at 388-389; Kennerly, supra, at 427. Unless, therefore, such jurisdiction was "assumed prior to and apart from Pub. L. 280,” ante, at 151, an assumption I find untenable for the reasons given, Pub. L. 280 precludes the exercise of jurisdiction in this case."

For this reason, the Court's reliance on Nelson v. Dubois, 232 N. W. 2d 54 (N. D. 1975), and Schantz v. White Lightning, 231 N. W. 2d 812 (N. D. 1975), see ante, at 155-156, and n. 14, for the proposition that the North Dakota Supreme Court may have misread federal law is misplaced. In so far as North Dakota has not already assumed lawful jurisdiction over suits arising in Indian country, either prior to Pub. L. 280 or pursuant to the terms of that statute, federal law does act "as an affirmative bar to the exercise of jurisdiction here," ante, at 155.

Obviously, if Pub. L. 280 would preclude a judicial assumption of jurisdiction in this case, then the North Dakota Supreme Court properly disposed of petitioner's equal protection argument with a simple citation to Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S., at 500-501, in which we rejected a similar challenge to a Washington statute which conditioned

138

REHNQUIST, J., dissenting

I might finally add that even if one did posit a truncated Vermillion as somehow providing the residual jurisdiction necessary to the Court's argument until eclipsed by the North Dakota Legislature, there is still no indication and the Court offers no good reason to believe that the North Dakota Supreme Court interpreted Chapter 27-19 under any misapprehensions about Pub. L. 280. The North Dakota court in fact shows a perfectly clear appreciation of both the purpose and effect of Pub. L. 280.

"The purpose of Public Law 280 was to facilitate the transfer of jurisdictional responsibility to the states. Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes, 439 U. S. 463, 505 (1979). It permitted states to amend their constitutions or existing statutes to remove any legal impediments to the assumption of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and thereby to unilaterally assume jurisdiction over criminal and civil matters within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within the states taking such action." 321 N. W. 2d 510, 511 (1982).

This statement of the law is unexceptionable. Indeed, the Court's own statement of the purpose and effect of Pub. L. 280, see ante, at 150, reads like a paraphrase of the above passage.

The North Dakota court never even remotely implies that Pub. L. 280 "required" the State to eliminate any preexisting, lawfully assumed jurisdiction. The focus is rather on the passage of Chapter 27-19 by the state legislature. See n. 3, supra. And as to whether the court may have mistakenly thought that Pub. L. 280 "authorized" such a disclaimer of jurisdiction by the State, I cannot see how that question is relevant at all. Either a disclaimer of pre-existing jurisdiction was forbidden by federal law or it was not. If not, and

state jurisdiction over Indian lands in some subject-matter areas on Indian consent. It would also follow that the lower court's handling of the equal protection claim does not, as the Court would have it, ante, at 154, reflect any misunderstanding of federal law.

REHNQUIST, J., dissenting

467 U. S.

the majority does not imply that it was, then there is no additional requirement that it be affirmatively sanctioned. A State is not obliged to play "Mother, may I" with the Federal Government before retroceding jurisdiction that, under our cases, could have been retained.

In my view, therefore, the only federal question presented in this case is whether North Dakota's failure to permit Indians to sue non-Indians in circumstances under which nonIndians could not sue Indians violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After our decision in Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, supra, that question is not a substantial one. See n. 5, supra. Access to the North Dakota courts is within the power of petitioner. The Tribe need merely consent to the full civil jurisdiction which North Dakota, pursuant to Pub. L. 280, stands ready to offer them. Petitioner wants to enjoy the full benefits of the state courts as plaintiff without ever running the risk of appearing as defendant. The Equal Protection Clause mandates no such result.

I respectfully dissent.

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. LORENZETTI

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 83-838. Argued April 23, 1984-Decided May 29, 1984

Respondent, a Federal Government employee injured in an automobile accident in Pennsylvania while on official business, received payment from the Government under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) for his medical expenses and lost wages. Under FECA, the Government is not liable for losses such as pain and suffering. Respondent subsequently instituted a tort action in a Pennsylvania state court against the driver of the other automobile. Such an action is generally limited under the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act to recovery for noneconomic losses like pain and suffering. After respondent eventually settled the case for a sum that represented compensation for noneconomic losses alone, the United States sought to be reimbursed for its FECA payments out of the settlement, asserting that it was entitled to reimbursement pursuant to the provision of FECA (5 U. S. C. § 8132) prescribing that whenever a federal employee suffers injury or death compensable under FECA "under circumstances creating a legal liability in a person other than the United States to pay damages," and the employee or his beneficiaries receive "money or other property in satisfaction of that liability as the result of suit or settlement," they "shall refund to the United States the amount of compensation paid by the United States." Respondent declined to pay over the requested sum and commenced an action in Federal District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Government's right of reimbursement under § 8132 was confined to recovery out of damages awards or settlements for economic losses of the sort covered by FECA, and that an award or settlement confined to noneconomic losses like pain and suffering was immune from recovery under § 8132. The District Court granted summary judgment to the United States, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Held: Section 8132 entitles the United States to be reimbursed for FECA compensation out of any damages award or settlement made in satisfaction of third-party liability for personal injury or death, regardless of whether the award or settlement is for losses other than medical expenses and lost wages. On its face, the statute does not confine the United States to the rights of a subrogee with respect to the specific classes of expenses paid by it to injured employees under FECA; instead, it expressly creates a general right of reimbursement that obtains

Opinion of the Court

467 U. S. without regard to whether the employee's third-party recovery includes losses that are excluded from FECA coverage. This reading of § 8132 is reinforced by the parallel terms of § 8131, which governs the right of the United States itself to prosecute an employee's third-party action. And nothing in FECA's legislative history establishes that § 8132 means something less than what it says. While no-fault automobile insurance statutes were not in existence when FECA was enacted in 1916, the possibility that third-party recoveries might encompass compensation for pain and suffering was well known, and Congress has not subsequently acted to restrict the types of third-party recoveries from which the United States may obtain reimbursement. Nor is there any inconsistency between the interpretation of § 8132 adopted here and the underlying purposes of the provision. Pp. 173-179.

710 F. 2d 982, reversed.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Carolyn F. Corwin argued the cause for the United States. With her on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General Willard, Deputy Solicitor General Geller, William Kanter, and Freddi Lipstein.

Charles Sovel argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U. S. C. §8101 et seq., provides a comprehensive system of compensation for federal employees who sustain workrelated injuries. As part of that system, an employee who receives FECA payments is required to reimburse the United States for those payments, to a specified extent, when he obtains a damages award or settlement from a third party who is liable to the employee for his injuries. §8132. The question presented by this case is whether the United States may recover FECA payments for medical expenses and lost wages from an employee whose third-party tort recovery compensates him solely for noneconomic losses like pain and suffering.