Document: 395 U.S. 1 89 S.Ct. 1501 23 L.Ed.2d 52 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.John P. KING. No. 672. Argued April 2, 1969. Decided May 19, William D. Ruckelshaus, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Neil B. Kabatchnick, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. Colonel John King, respondent, was retired from Army longevity (length service) over his objection that he should have been physical disability. Had retirement based on disability, King would entitled to an exemption income taxation allowed by § 104(a)(4) Internal Revenue Code 1954, 26 U.S.C. 104(a)(4). He brought this action in Court Claims alleging Secretary Army's rejecting disability arbitrary, capricious, not supported evidence, and therefore unlawful, asked a judgment against United States amount excess taxes had compelled pay because instead The agreed with claim as filed basically one refund barred King's failure allege timely required 7422(a). In situation, court suggested counsel it might jurisdiction under Declaratory Judgment Act requested briefs arguments point be submitted court. This done. Claims, illuminating interesting Judge Davis, reached conclusion could exercise Act, 28 2201. so holding, thereby rejected Government's contentions does apply court's is limited actions asking money judgments. By thisr uling expressly declined follow long line its own decisions beginning Twin Cities Properties, Inc. v. States, 81 Ct.Cl. 655 (1935). As Davis showed, question whether has issue declaratory judgments both substantial important. We granted certiorari decide question. 2 established Congress 1855. Throughout entire history up until time case filed, claims Government. 1868 held 'the only which (is) authorized render government * are found due petitioner.' Alire, 6 Wall. 573, 575, 18 L.Ed. 947. Jones, 131 1, 9 669, 33 90; reaffirmed view passage Tucker 1887 expanded equitable matters. More recently, 1962, said prevailing Glidden Co. Zdanok, 370 530, 557, 82 1459, 1476, 8 671, disputed any other members '(f)rom (the Claims) given award damages *.' No amendment purporting increase enacted since decision Zdanok. 3 foregoing cases decided clearly show neither creating nor grants present case. That true actual, presently States. Before such must establish some legally wrong declaration right military records changed essentially relief kind throughout history, decided, power grant. 4 It argued, however, even if amendments did grant authority judgments, 1934. Support proposition drawn language '(i)n actual controversy within may declare rights legal relations interested party seeking declaration.' first answer contention that, we pointed out, than never 'within jurisdiction.' And agree legislative materials concerning application 'are, at best, ambiguous.' For below, sufficient there no clear indication affirmatively intended exclude scope Act. think approach runs counter settled propositions Claims' depends wholly upon extent waived sovereign immunity suit waiver cannot implied but unequivocally expressed. Sherwood, 312 584, 61 767, 85 1058. precisely position taken case, soon after passg e require specific express statute give that: 5 'If extend subject act, used do so, warranted assuming intention widen general provisions act concerns proceeding nature foreign heretofore exercised.' Ct.Cl., 658. earlier those consistently followed them were correct. There single or Congress, passing denied nearly century. absence decline assume 7 Reversed.

Category: 8