Steinberg v. United States
90 Fed. Cl. 435 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A complimentary ticket provided by the government does not create an enforceable contract because it lacks the essential elements of contract formation, such as mutual intent, consideration, and an unambiguous offer made by an authorized agent. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims of promissory estoppel against the government, as they are based on contracts implied-in-law for which sovereign immunity has not been waived.
Facts:
- The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) announced it would distribute approximately 240,000 complimentary tickets to the public for the 2009 presidential inauguration.
- Michael A. Steinberg obtained two free tickets from his Congressman for admission to the 'Blue Section' reserved viewing area.
- After receiving the tickets, Steinberg incurred expenses to travel to Washington, D.C. to attend the inauguration.
- On the day of the inauguration, Steinberg and his guest arrived at the designated 'Blue Section' but were ultimately refused admittance to the viewing area.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael A. Steinberg filed a Complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, asserting breach of contract on the grounds of promissory estoppel against the United States.
- The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- By leave of the court, Steinberg filed an Amended Complaint that re-labeled the claim as a breach of contract.
- The government filed an alternative Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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 the government's distribution of complimentary tickets for a presidential inauguration create a legally enforceable contract, making the government liable for a ticket-holder's travel expenses if they are denied entry?
Opinions:
Majority - Hewitt, Chief Judge
No, the government's distribution of complimentary tickets does not create a legally enforceable contract. To establish a valid contract with the government, a plaintiff must prove four elements: mutuality of intent, consideration, lack of ambiguity in offer and acceptance, and that the government official had actual authority to bind the government. Steinberg failed to demonstrate any of these elements. There was no mutual intent to form a binding contract; the tickets were a gratuity. There was no consideration, as Steinberg's travel expenses were not a bargained-for detriment sought by the government. Finally, the alleged offer was ambiguous, and Steinberg failed to show that any government official involved had the actual authority to bind the United States to a contract for damages related to inaugural tickets.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict requirements for forming a contract with the United States government, particularly the need for bargained-for consideration and mutual intent. It clarifies that a gratuitous offer from the government, like a free ticket, does not transform into a binding contract simply because a citizen incurs expenses in reliance on it. The decision also serves as a strong reminder of the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Federal Claims, which cannot hear promissory estoppel claims against the government due to sovereign immunity.
Unlock the full brief for Steinberg v. United States