In the case of United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a tribe could not file two lawsuits in different courts over the same issue at the same time. The Tohono O’odham Nation had filed a lawsuit against federal officials in U.S District Court for mismanaging tribal assets held in trust by the government and another suit with similar claims was also filed in Federal Claims court seeking monetary damages from these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Supreme Court found this to be duplicative litigation and ruled it as barred under section 1500 of Title 28 which prohibits claimants from filing concurrent lawsuits with identical claims against the US Government in multiple courts. This decision upheld restrictions on dual jurisdiction between district courts and federal claims court when dealing with cases involving Indian tribes.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1500 was overly broad and inconsistent with its historical context and purpose. She contended that this statute should only bar jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC) when another suit is pending in a district court or international tribunal based on substantially identical facts, not merely similar operative facts as held by the majority. According to her, such an expansive reading could potentially deprive claimants of their right to pursue valid claims against the government due to procedural technicalities beyond their control - something Congress did not intend while enacting this law during Civil War times primarily aimed at preventing dual recoveries from cotton claimants. Furthermore, she disagreed with denying CFC jurisdiction over monetary claims just because related non-monetary relief was sought elsewhere; instead suggesting these cases be stayed until resolution of other suits if needed.