Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 28

24 MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

A 
The United States is immune from suit unless it unequiv-
ocally consents.  United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 
287, 289 (2009).  The Government has waived immunity for
certain  damages  suits  in  the  Court  of  Federal  Claims
through the Tucker Act, 24 Stat. 505.  See United States v. 
Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 212 (1983).  That statute permits
“claim[s] against the United States founded either upon the
Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an
executive department, or upon any express or implied con-
tract  with  the  United  States,  or  for  liquidated  or  unliqui-
dated damages in cases not sounding in tort.”  28 U. S. C. 
§1491(a)(1).

The  Tucker  Act,  however,  does  not  create  “substantive 
rights.”  Navajo Nation, 556 U. S., at 290.  A plaintiff rely-
ing on the Tucker Act must premise her damages action on 
“other sources of law,” like “statutes or contracts.”  Ibid.  For 
that reason, “[n]ot every claim invoking the Constitution, a
federal  statute,  or  a  regulation  is  cognizable  under  the
Tucker  Act.”  Mitchell,  463  U. S.,  at  216.    Nor  will  every
“failure to perform an obligation . . . creat[e] a right to mon-
etary  relief ”  against  the  Government.    United  States  v. 
Bormes, 568 U. S. 6, 16 (2012). 

To determine whether a statutory claim falls within the
Tucker Act’s immunity waiver, we typically employ a “fair 
interpretation” test.  A statute creates a “right capable of 
grounding a claim within the waiver of sovereign immunity 
if, but only if, it ‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating com-
pensation by the Federal Government for the damage sus-
tained.’ ”    United  States  v.  White  Mountain  Apache  Tribe, 
537  U. S.  465,  472  (2003)  (quoting  Mitchell,  463  U. S.,  at 
217)); see also Navajo Nation, 556 U. S., at 290 (“The other 
source  of  law  need  not  explicitly  provide  that  the  right  or 
duty it creates is enforceable through a suit for damages”).
Satisfying this rubric is generally both necessary and suffi-
cient to permit a Tucker Act suit for damages in the Court