One of the first questions a plaintiff must answer in deciding whether to sue the United States in a claim based on a federal contract is where to file the case. Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a plaintiff can challenge final federal agency actions as arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and obtain declaratory and injunctive relief if found in violation of the law. Under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff can only obtain money damages for the government’s breach of a contract duty.
This issue is front and center in a case pending in federal district court in the Northern District of California. See Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. There plaintiffs, immigrant advocacy groups that represent migrant children, sued under the APA to force the agency to keep funding the terminated programs that provide legal services program for immigrant unaccompanied minors.
The Government moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the Tucker Act deprives the federal district court of jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, contending that their claims “sound in contract.” The Government’s brief argues:
The APA explicitly does not apply “to the extent that statutes preclude judicial review.” 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(1). The Tucker Act “impliedly forbids” APA claims involving government contracts.. . .
To determine whether the claim is a Tucker Act claim “disguised” as an APA claim, the Ninth Circuit looks to the “source of the rights” on which the plaintiffs base their claims and the “type of relief sought.” If the rights and remedies are contractually based, i.e., the plaintiff seeks to enforce a duty imposed by a contract, then only the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff formally seeks injunctive relief.
This case raises an important issue of whether plaintiffs can, as the Government puts it, “sidestep” the Tucker Act. The district court judge has not ruled on the motion to dismiss.
Read Government’s brief here.
