Limtiaco v. Camacho, 549 U.S. 483 (2007)
Primary Holding
The debt limitation for Guam, as established by the Organic Act, must be calculated based on the assessed valuation of property, not the appraised valuation.
In the case of Limtiaco v. Camacho, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Guam's debt limit should be based on the assessed value of property, not the higher appraised value. This matters because it helps ensure that Guam does not take on too much debt, which could affect public services and finances. For consumers, this ruling protects their interests by keeping government borrowing in check, ensuring that their taxes and services remain stable. This case is relevant if you're concerned about how local government debt could impact your community or if you want to understand the financial decisions made by local leaders.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of Limtiaco v. Camacho, the underlying dispute arose when the Guam Legislature authorized the Governor of Guam to issue approximately $400 million in bonds to address the Territory's financial shortfalls. However, the Attorney General of Guam refused to sign the necessary contracts for the bond issuance, arguing that doing so would violate the debt-limitation provision of the Organic Act of Guam, which restricts the Territory's debt to 10 percent of the assessed valuation of taxable property. The Governor contested this interpretation and sought a declaration from the Guam Supreme Court that the bonds could be issued without exceeding the debt limit, asserting that the limit should be calculated based on the appraised valuation of property instead. The procedural history of the case involved the Governor's petition for a declaration being heard by the Guam Supreme Court, which sided with the Governor's interpretation, determining that the debt limitation should indeed be calculated based on the appraised valuation. Following this ruling, the Attorney General filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, during the pendency of the appeal, Congress amended the relevant statute, removing the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction over appeals from Guam. As a result, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Attorney General's appeal, citing a prior case that established Congress had stripped its jurisdiction retroactively. The case highlights the tension between the Governor's fiscal strategies and the Attorney General's interpretation of statutory limitations on debt. The underlying financial difficulties faced by Guam and the differing interpretations of the Organic Act's provisions set the stage for this legal conflict, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court's involvement to clarify the appropriate method for calculating Guam's debt limit.
Whether Guam's debt limitation under the Organic Act must be calculated based on the assessed or the appraised valuation of property in Guam.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 8, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Thomas
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005)
Consumer LostThe "substantially advances" formula established in Agins v. City of Tiburon is not an appropriate test for determining whether government regulation effects a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007)
Consumer WonFederal bankruptcy law does not categorically preclude an unsecured creditor from recovering attorney’s fees authorized by a prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation, even when the litigation involves issues of federal bankruptcy law.
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005)
Consumer WonThe Government's promises to pay contract support costs to Indian tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act are legally binding, even if Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds for those costs.
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008)
Consumer LostThe foreign sovereign immunity of a state precludes a court from proceeding with an action in which the sovereign cannot be joined as a party, and the court must consider the implications of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of this immunity.