Opinion ID: 210364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Little Tucker Act Jurisdiction

Text: The Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), waives the government's sovereign immunity for, inter alia, claims of breach of express or implied contract brought against the United States government. See Doe v. United States, 372 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2004) (The pertinent portions of the . . . Little Tucker Act waive sovereign immunity for claims `founded . . . upon any express . . . contract with the United States. . . .'). Although Congress has waived the United States' sovereign immunity for certain contract claims against the government, we are presented with the question of whether the Agreement in Implementation is a contract falling within that waiver. If executive agreements between sovereign nations are express contracts within the meaning of the Little Tucker Act, then the United States has waived its sovereign immunity for suits under executive agreements such as the Agreement in Implementation. If these agreements between sovereign nations are not express contracts under the Little Tucker Act, sovereign immunity acts as a jurisdictional bar to De Archibold's claims. See, e.g., United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 587-88, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). To determine whether the Agreement in Implementation is an express contract encompassed by the Little Tucker Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, we focus on the language of this provision. Section 1346(a)(2), like all waivers of sovereign immunity, must be strictly interpreted. See Sherwood, 312 U.S. at 590, 61 S.Ct. 767 (This section must be interpreted in light of its function in giving consent of the Government to be sued, which consent, since it is a relinquishment of sovereign immunity, must be strictly interpreted.). Any ambiguity in section 1346(a)(2) should be resolved in favor of the sovereign. See Dep't of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 262, 119 S.Ct. 687, 142 L.Ed.2d 718 (1999) (The Supreme Court has frequently held . . . that a waiver of sovereign immunity is to be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign and that [s]uch a waiver must be `unequivocally expressed' in the statutory text.). We cannot resort to the legislative history to find a waiver not otherwise unequivocally expressed in the statute. See Lane v. Peña, 518 U.S. 187, 192, 116 S.Ct. 2092, 135 L.Ed.2d 486 (1996) (A statute's legislative history cannot supply a waiver that does not appear clearly in any statutory text.); United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 37, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992) ([T]he `unequivocal expression' of elimination of sovereign immunity that we insist upon is an expression in the statutory text. If clarity does not exist there, it cannot be supplied by a committee report.). Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that the Little Tucker Act does not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for claims based on the Agreement in Implementation. Executive agreements, such as the Agreement in Implementation, are agreements between the United States and foreign nations. Such agreements have long been treated by the judiciary as treaties. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 29-32, 102 S.Ct. 1510, 71 L.Ed.2d 715 (1982); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 330-31, 57 S.Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937); B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583, 597, 32 S.Ct. 593, 56 L.Ed. 894 (1912); Kwan v. United States, 272 F.3d 1360, 1362 (Fed.Cir.2001). The Agreement in Implementation is part and parcel to the Panama Canal Treaty and constitutes a means to effectuate the United States' obligations under Article IV of that Treaty. If Congress had intended to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts for claims arising under treaties and executive agreements carte blanche, Congress would have clearly stated so. [2] We do not think that Congress would have used the term express contract to encompass international executive agreements and treaties in light of the separation of powers considerations implicated when the judiciary is asked to entertain questions that are expressly delegated to the executive as part of the executive's power to conduct foreign affairs. [3] See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2. We recognize that courts have referred to treaties and executive agreements between sovereign nations as contractual in nature. See, e.g., Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 253, 104 S.Ct. 1776, 80 L.Ed.2d 273 (1984) (A treaty is in the nature of a contract between nations.); Washington v. Wash. State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658, 675, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979) (A treaty, including one between the United States and an Indian tribe, is essentially a contract between two sovereign nations.); Santovincenzo v. Egan, 284 U.S. 30, 40, 52 S.Ct. 81, 76 L.Ed. 151 (1931) (As treaties are contracts between independent nations, their words are to be taken in their ordinary meaning as understood in the public law of nations. (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. at 598, 5 S.Ct. 247 (A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.); Foster, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) at 314 (A treaty is in its nature a contract between two nations.). This is not dispositive on the issue of whether the United States can be sued for an alleged breach of an executive agreement or treaty under the Little Tucker Act. Although treaties are in the nature of a contract between nations, Trans World, 466 U.S. at 253, 104 S.Ct. 1776, they are not express contracts within 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). To hold otherwise would violate the principle that waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. See Blue Fox, 525 U.S. at 262, 119 S.Ct. 687. We conclude that in the absence of clear and unequivocal language to the contrary, treaties and international executive agreements between sovereign nations, such as the Agreement in Implementation, are not within the waiver of sovereign immunity for claims of breach of an express contract contained in the Little Tucker Act. [4]