Syllabus | Opinion [ Rehnquist ] |
---|---|
HTML version PDF version | HTML version PDF version |
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY v. BLUE FOX, INC.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Verdan Technology, Inc., an insolvent prime contractor, failed to pay respondent Blue Fox, Inc., a subcontractor, for work the latter completed on a construction project for petitioner, the Department of the Army. Because the Army did not require Verdan to post Miller Act bonds, Blue Fox sued the Army directly, asserting an equitable lien on certain funds held by the Army. Holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity in §10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702 did not apply to Blue Foxs claim, the District Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and granted the Army summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part, holding that under Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, and this Courts cases examining a suretys right of subrogation, the APA waives immunity for equitable actions, thus compelling allowance of Blue Foxs equitable lien.
Held: Section 702 does not nullify the long settled rule that, unless waived by Congress, sovereign immunity bars creditors from enforcing liens on Government property. Although §702 waives the Governments immunity from actions seeking relief other than money damages, the waiver must be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in the sovereigns favor and must be unequivocally expressed in the statutory text. See Lane v. Peña, 518 U.S. 187, 192. Blue Foxs claim does not meet this high standard. Bowens analysis of §702 did not turn on whether a particular claim for relief is equitable (a term not found in §702), but on whether the claim is for money damages, i.e., a sum used as compensatory relief to substitute for a suffered loss, as opposed to a specific remedy that attempts to give the plaintiff the very thing to which he was entitled. See 487 U.S., at 895, 897, 900. The sort of equitable lien Blue Fox sought here constitutes a money damages claim within §702s meaning; its goal is to seize or attach money in the Governments hands as compensation for the loss resulting from Verdans default. As a form of substitute and not specific relief, Blue Foxs action to enforce an equitable lien falls outside the scope of §702s immunity waiver. This holding accords with the Courts precedent establishing that sovereign immunity bars creditors from attaching or garnishing funds in the Treasury, see Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20, and enforcing liens against property owned by the United States, see, e.g., United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 218 U.S. 452, 471. Respondent points to nothing in §702s text or history that suggests that Congress intended to overrule this precedent, let alone anything that unequivocally express[es] such an intent. Lane, supra, at 192. Instead, recognizing that sovereign immunity left subcontractors and suppliers without a remedy against the Government when the general contractor became insolvent, Congress enacted the Miller Act, which by its terms only gives subcontractors the right to sue on the prime contractors surety bond, not the right to recover its losses directly from the Government. The cases examining a suretys right of equitable subrogation, see, e.g., Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. Co., 371 U.S. 132, 141, do not suggest that subcontractors can seek compensation directly against the Government, since none of them involved a sovereign immunity question or a subcontractor directly asserting a claim against the Government. Pp. 410.
121 F.3d 1357, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.