Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.
525 U.S. 255, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 746, 142 L. Ed. 2d 718 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702, which waives sovereign immunity for actions seeking relief "other than money damages," does not waive the government's immunity from suits seeking to enforce an equitable lien on government funds, as such liens constitute "money damages" by providing compensatory or substitute relief rather than specific relief.
Facts:
- In September 1993, the Department of the Army contracted with Verdan Technology, Inc. to install a telephone switching system at an Army depot in Umatilla, Oregon, as part of a Small Business Administration (SBA) development program.
- Verdan subcontracted with Blue Fox, Inc. to construct a concrete block building and install safety and support systems for the telephone project.
- Although the Army's original solicitation required Miller Act payment and performance bonds, the Army later amended it, classified the contract as a "services contract," and removed the bond requirements.
- Verdan, therefore, did not post any Miller Act bonds for the project.
- Blue Fox completed its subcontracted work, but Verdan failed to pay Blue Fox the remaining $46,586.14 it was owed.
- The Army received notices from Blue Fox regarding the non-payment but subsequently disbursed a total of $86,132.33 to Verdan for completed work.
- In January 1995, the Army terminated its contract with Verdan for various defaults.
- Blue Fox obtained a default judgment against Verdan in tribal court but was unable to collect from Verdan or its officers.
Procedural Posture:
- Blue Fox, Inc. sued the Department of the Army in Federal District Court, seeking an equitable lien on funds from the Verdan contract.
- The District Court granted the Army's motion for summary judgment, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity did not apply to Blue Fox's claim.
- Blue Fox appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (as appellant).
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that under Bowen v. Massachusetts, the APA waived immunity for equitable actions and allowed Blue Fox's suit.
- The Government (as petitioner) petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the APA waives the Government's immunity from suits to enforce an equitable lien.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which waives sovereign immunity for actions seeking "other than money damages," waive the Federal Government's immunity from a subcontractor's suit to enforce an equitable lien on funds held by the Army to satisfy an unpaid debt from a prime contractor?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, Section 10(a) of the APA does not waive the Federal Government's immunity from a subcontractor's suit to enforce an equitable lien on government funds. The Court clarified that the "other than money damages" language in § 702 distinguishes between specific relief and compensatory (or substitute) relief, not between "equitable" and "non-equitable" actions. As established in Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988), "money damages" refers to a sum of money used as compensatory relief, whereas specific remedies attempt to give the plaintiff the very thing to which they were entitled. Equitable liens, by their nature, constitute substitute or compensatory relief because they merely grant a security interest in property to satisfy a money claim rather than giving the plaintiff the specific thing owed. The goal of such a lien is to seize money as compensation for a loss, thus falling under the category of "money damages" from which the government's immunity is not waived. This holding is consistent with long-settled precedent that sovereign immunity bars creditors from attaching or garnishing funds in the Treasury or enforcing liens against property owned by the United States (Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20 (1845); United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 218 U.S. 452 (1910)). Congress provided the Miller Act as the specific legislative mechanism to protect subcontractors against contractor insolvency, not by implicitly waiving sovereign immunity to allow direct claims against the government.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the scope of the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) waiver of sovereign immunity, establishing a clear distinction between "specific relief" and "compensatory/substitute relief" for purposes of the "other than money damages" clause. It reinforces the principle that waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed and strictly construed in favor of the sovereign, particularly concerning claims seeking to attach government funds. The decision effectively closes a potential avenue for subcontractors and other creditors to pursue direct claims against the government when a prime contractor defaults, reiterating that specific statutory schemes like the Miller Act are the intended remedies. This limits the ability to use equitable remedies to circumvent sovereign immunity in contractual disputes involving the federal government.
