[an error occurred while processing this directive]
FindLaw: Legal Subjects: Government Contracts: Cases
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Government Contracts: Cases
- Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (The prime contractor under a federal highway construction contract containing such a clause awarded a subcontract to a company that was certified as a small disadvantaged business. Petitioner Adarand Constructors, Inc., which submitted the low bid on the subcontract but was not a certified business, filed suit against respondent federal officials, claiming that the race based presumptions used in subcontractor compensation clauses violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The District Court granted respondents summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals assessed the constitutionality of the federal race based action under a lenient standard, resembling intermediate scrutiny. Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.)
- Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Blaze Constr. Co., Inc. 526 U.S. 32 (1999) (The Bureau of Indian Affairs contracted with Blaze Construction Company to build, repair, and improve roads on several Indian reservations located in Arizona. At the end of the contracting period, petitioner Arizona Department of Revenue (Department) issued a tax deficiency assessment against Blaze for its failure to pay Arizona’s transaction privilege tax, typically levied on companies doing business in the State, on the proceeds from its contracts with the Bureau. Blaze protested the assessment and prevailed in administrative proceedings, but the Arizona Tax Court granted the Department summary judgment. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, and holding that federal law pre-empted the tax’s application to Blaze. Held: A State generally may impose a nondiscriminatory tax upon a private company’s proceeds from contracts with the Federal Government, regardless of whether the federal contractor renders its services on an Indian reservation.)
- Bd. Of County Comm'rs v. Umbehr 518 U.S. 666 (1996) (During the term of his at will contract with the County, respondent Umbehr was an outspoken critic of petitioner Board of County Commissioners (Board). After the commissioners voted to terminate (or prevent the automatic renewal of) the contract, allegedly because they took Umbehr's criticism badly, he brought this suit against two of them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court granted them summary judgment, but the Tenth Circuit reversed in relevant part and remanded, holding that the First Amendment protects independent contractors from governmental retaliation against their speech, and that the extent of that protection must be determined by weighing the government's interests as contractor against the free speech interests at stake in accordance with the balancing test applied in the government employment context under Pickering. Held: The First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech, and the Pickering balancing test, adjusted to weigh the government's interests as contractor rather than as employer, determines the extent of that protection.)
- Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma et al. v. Leavitt 543 U.S. 631 (2003) (Each Tribe agreed to supply health services normally provided by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service, and the contracts included an annual funding agreement with a Government promise to pay contract support costs. The Government refused to pay the full amount promised because Congress had not appropriated sufficient funds. In the first case, the Tribes submitted administrative payment claims under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, which the Department of the Interior (the appropriations manager) denied. They then brought a breach-of-contract action. The District Court found against them, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. In the second case, the Cherokee Nation submitted claims to the Department of the Interior, which the Board of Contract Appeals ordered paid. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Held: The Government is legally bound to pay the “contract support costs)
- Franconia Associates et al v. U.S. 536 U.S. 123 (2002) (Because ELIHPA’s enactment qualified as a repudiation of the parties’ bargain, not a present breach of the loan agreements, breach would occur, and the six-year limitations period would commence to run, when a borrower tenders prepayment and the Government then dishonors its obligation to accept the tender and release its control over use of the property securing the loan.)
- Hercules Inc. et al v. U.S. 516 U.S. 417 (1996) (Petitioner chemical manufacturers produced the defoliant Agent Orange under contracts with the Federal Government. After they incurred substantial costs defending, and then settling, tort claims, petitioners filed suits under the Tucker Act to recover such costs from the Government on alternative theories of contractual indemnification and warranty of specifications provided by the Government. The Claims Court granted summary judgment against them and dismissed the complaints. The Court of Appeals consolidated the cases and affirmed. Held: Petitioners may not recover on their warranty of specifications and contractual indemnification claims.)
- Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast Inc. v. U.S. 530 U.S. 604 (2000) (Before the Commerce Secretary issued his rejection, the companies joined a breach of contract lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims. That court granted them summary judgment, finding that the Government had broken its contractual promise to follow OCSLA, that the Government thereby repudiated the contracts, and that that repudiation entitled the companies to restitution of their payments. In reversing, the Federal Circuit held that the Government’s refusal to consider Mobil’s Plan was not the operative cause of any failure to carry out the contracts’ terms because the State’s objection to the CZMA certification would have prevented the exploration. Held: The Government broke its promise, repudiated the contracts, and must give the companies their money back.)
- National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Dep't of Interior 538 U.S. 803 (2003) (The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA) establishes rules governing disputes arising out of certain Government contracts. After Congress enacted the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, establishing a comprehensive concession management program for national parks, the National Park Service (NPS) issued implementing regulations including 36 CFR § 51.3 which purports to render the CDA inapplicable to concession contracts. Petitioner concessioners’ association challenged §51.3’s validity. The District Court upheld the regulation, concluding that the CDA is ambiguous on whether it applies to concession contracts and finding NPS’ interpretation reasonable under Chevron. The District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, placing no reliance on Chevron, but finding NPS’ reading of the CDA consistent with both the CDA and the 1998 Act. Held: The controversy is not yet ripe for judicial resolution. Determining whether administrative action is ripe requires evaluation of (1) the issues’ fitness for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.)
- Tenet et al. v. Doe et ux. 544 U.S. 1 (2005) (Respondent husband and wife filed suit against the United States and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), asserting estoppel and due process claims for the CIA’s alleged failure to provide them with financial assistance it had promised in return for their espionage services during the Cold War. The District Court denied the Government’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, finding that respondents’ claims were not barred by the rule of Totten, prohibiting suits against the Government based on covert espionage agreements. Affirming in relevant part, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Totten posed no bar to reviewing some of respondents’ claims and thus the case could proceed to trial, subject to the Government’s asserting the evidentiary state secrets privilege and the District Court’s resolving that issue. Held: Respondents’ suit is barred by the Totten rule. The very essence of such a contract was that it was secret and had to remain so, and found that allowing a former spy to bring suit to enforce such a contract would be entirely incompatible with the contract’s nature.)
- U.S. v. Winstar Corp. et al. 518 U.S. 839 (1996) (the lower court held that the Government had breached its contractual obligations, and rejected the Government's "unmistakability defense"--that surrenders of sovereign authority, such as the promise to refrain from regulatory changes, must appear in unmistakable terms in a contract in order to be enforceable, and its "sovereign act defense--that a "public and general" sovereign act, such as FIRREA's alteration of capital reserve requirements, could not trigger contractual liability. The cases were consolidated, and the en banc Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed. Held: affirmed and remanded)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]