Opinion ID: 4700322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validly Conferred Authority from Congress

Text: The second prong of Yearsley immunity requires a contractor’s authority to be validly conferred by Congress. See Yearsley, 309 U.S. at 20– 21. (“[A]uthority to carry out the project was validly conferred . . . if what was done was within the constitutional power of Congress.”). Thus, we ask whether the On-Scene Coordinator’s delegation of work to Couvillion was valid. If not, then Couvillion’s actions are not immunized under Yearsley. See Cunningham v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 888 F.3d 640, 648 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining, in a suit against a contractor under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, that “[t]he question is not whether informing applicants of their enrollment eligibility violated the [TCPA], but rather whether Congress had the authority to assign [the contractor] to complete that task.”). Taylor argues that the On-Scene Coordinator did not have authority to hire Couvillion. Relevant here, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(c)(1)(B) permits the President to (i) remove or arrange for the removal of a discharge, and mitigate or prevent a substantial threat of a discharge, at any time; (ii) direct or monitor all Federal, State, and private actions to remove a discharge; and (iii) remove and, if necessary, destroy a vessel discharging, or threat- ening to discharge, by whatever means are available. Further, 40 C.F.R. § 300.322(b) gives the On-Scene Coordinator similar abilities. Taylor maintains that Couvillion and the Coast Guard 9 Case: 20-30552 Document: 00515920762 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 No. 20-30552 exceeded the limits of federal law by trespassing on the MC20 jacket since neither the jacket nor the other MC20 components are “vessels.”2 We disagree with Taylor’s analysis of the relevant statutes. Section 300.322(b)(1) and (2) empower the On-Scene Coordinator to remove discharges and mitigate substantial threats of discharge.3 When the Government contracted with Couvillion and Couvillion placed its containment system at the MC20 site, the site was either actively discharging or threatening to discharge. Couvillion’s actions on behalf of the Government fit within the language of the relevant federal statutes. Thus, Couvillion’s authority to carry out its actions was validly conferred by Congress.