Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Francis A. Orff, et al., Petitioners v. United States et al.

Country/Territory
United States of America
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jun 23, 2005
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of the United States
Seat of court
Washington D.C.
Judge
Thomas
Reference number
358 F.3d 1137
Language
English
Subject
Water, Legal questions
Keyword
Contract/agreement Water supply
Abstract
The petitioners were individual farmers and farming entities in California who purchased water from the respondent Westlands Water District. The District received its water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation under a 1963 contract between the District and the Bureau. The Petitioners contended that the Bureau breached the contract in 1993 when it reduced the water supply to the District. Although the petitioners were not parties to the contract, they claimed that they were entitled to enforce it as intended third-party beneficiaries. They argued that the United States had waived its sovereign immunity from suits for breach of contract in a provision of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, § 390uu; and hence that they could sue the United States in the federal district court for breach of the 1963 contract. The Supreme Court held that, in enacting §390uu, Congress did not consent to the petitioners’ suit. The provision granted consent “to join the United States as a necessary party defendant in any suit to adjudicate” certain rights under a federal reclamation contract. A waiver of sovereign immunity had to be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. In light of this principle, §390uu was best interpreted to grant consent to join the United States in an action between other parties –for example, two water districts, or a water district and its members– when the action required construction of a reclamation contract and joinder of the United States was necessary. It did not permit a plaintiff to sue the United States alone. The interpretation also drew force from the contrast between §390uu’s language, which spoke in terms of joinder, and the broader phrasing of statutes that waived immunity from suits against the United States alone. For example, the “Tucker Act” waived immunity from suits against the United States alone. The petitioners’ suit, brought solely against the United States and its agents, was not an attempt to “join the United States as a necessary party defendant” under §390uu. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Full text
03-1566.ZO.html