Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005)
Primary Holding
Congress did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for suits brought by third-party beneficiaries under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, and therefore, individuals who are not parties to a government contract cannot sue the United States for breach of that contract.
In the case of Orff v. United States, a group of farmers in California tried to sue the U.S. government because they believed a water contract between the government and their water district was broken, which affected their water supply. The Supreme Court ruled that these farmers, who were not part of the contract, could not sue the government because the law did not allow it. This decision is important for consumers because it clarifies that only parties directly involved in a contract can hold the government accountable for breaches, protecting the government from being sued by unrelated individuals. This case is relevant if someone believes they are affected by a government contract but are not a direct party to it.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Orff v. United States, the underlying dispute involved individual farmers and farming entities in California, known as petitioners, who purchased water from the Westlands Water District. The Westlands Water District had a water service contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation, established in 1963, which stipulated the annual quantities of water to be provided. In 1993, the Bureau reduced the water supply to Westlands, prompting the petitioners to claim that this reduction constituted a breach of contract. Although the petitioners were not direct parties to the contract, they argued that they were intended third-party beneficiaries entitled to enforce it. They also contended that the United States had waived its sovereign immunity regarding breach of contract claims through a provision in the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982. The procedural history of the case began when the petitioners filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the United States, seeking to hold it accountable for the alleged breach of the 1963 contract. The case was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled against the petitioners. The petitioners then sought a writ of certiorari, leading to the Supreme Court's review of the case. Relevant background context includes the establishment of the Reclamation Act of 1902, which initiated a federal program for water storage and distribution projects in the arid Western States, including California. The Bureau of Reclamation administers the Central Valley Project (CVP), which is responsible for water distribution in California's Central Valley. The reductions in water delivery that sparked the lawsuit were influenced by environmental obligations imposed by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, which required the Bureau to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act and dedicate water for fish and wildlife restoration efforts.
Whether the petitioners, as intended third-party beneficiaries, have the right to sue the United States for breach of contract under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, given that they are not parties to the original contract between the United States and Westlands Water District.
The judgment is affirmed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- February 23, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Thomas
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Consumer LostFederal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.
United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005)
Mixed OutcomeThe Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives sovereign immunity only in circumstances where the United States would be liable as a "private person" under local law, not based on the liability of state or municipal entities.
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.
Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)
Consumer LostThe application of the Kansas motor fuel tax to fuel received by non-Indian distributors, which is subsequently delivered to a gas station on the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation's reservation, does not violate the Nation's sovereignty because the tax arises from a transaction that occurs off the reservation, and thus the Bracker interest-balancing test does not apply.