Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co.

holding that a contractor directed by the federal government to construct several dikes was immune from claims arising from the resulting erosion and loss of property when the damage was allegedly caused by the dikes’ existence, not the manner of their construction | noting that "there is no liability on the part of [a] contractor for executing [Congress'] will" | noting that “there is no liability on the part of the contractor for executing [the] will [of Congress]” | recognizing contract specification defense where contractor is an "agent or officer of the Government" | holding that a contractor directed by the federal government to construct several dikes was immune from claims arising from the resulting erosion and loss of property when the damage was allegedly caused by the dikes’ existence, not the manner of their construction | holding that a contractor directed by the federal government to construct several dikes was immune from claims arising from the resulting erosion and loss of property when the damage was allegedly caused by the dikes’ existence, not the manner of their construction | refusing to pass upon a takings claim because of the existence of a statute "afford[ing] a plain and adequate remedy" | refusing to pass upon a takings claim because of the existence of a statute “afford[ing] a plain and adequate remedy” | emphasizing that “[t]he Court of Appeals . . . found it to be undisputed that the work which the contractor had done . . . was all authorized and directed by the Government of the United States” | immunizing a private contractor from a Fifth Amendment takings claim when the contractor had constructed dikes at the federal government’s direction that caused erosion on plaintiffs’ land | finding sovereign immunity applied to defense contractor hired to improve navigation of Missouri River, under direction of the Secretary of War, as authorized by an act of Congress | stating that “[i]t is clear that if this authority to carry out the project was validly conferred, that is, if what was done was within the constitutional power of Congress, there is no liability on the part of the contractor for executing its will” | refusing to pass upon a takings claim because of the existence of a statute “afford[ ing ] a plain and adequate remedy” | noting without disagreement that the lower court exercised jurisdiction over the case | "[T]he Government has impliedly promised to pay [the plaintiffs] compensation and has afforded a remedy for its recovery by a suit in the Court of Claims" | “[T]he Government has impliedly promised to pay [the plaintiffs] compensation and has afforded a remedy for its recovery by a suit in the Court of Claims” | "Where an agent or officer of the Government purporting to act on its behalf . . . ." (emphasis added) | favorably referencing the Fifth Circuit's affirmance that a private individual "was immune from suit " when it followed the sovereign's orders (emphasis added | private defendant acting pursuant to valid contract with government held not liable for alleged constitutional injury caused by its actions. | private defendant acting pursuant to valid contract with government held not liable for alleged constitutional injury caused by its actions. | "[T]here is no ground for holding its agent liable . . . . The action of the agent is `the act of the government.'" (emphasis added | construction contractor not liable to landowner under state law for erosion caused by contractor’s work constructing dikes for the government | federal contractor immune from liability where the lawsuit attacked dikes’ existence rather than the method of construction | this case is generally considered the first case from which the government contract defense is derived | "The action of the agent is `the act of the government' " | there is no liability for federal contractors when authority is validly conferred by executing the government’s will | “[W]e treat the Yearsley doctrine as derivative sovereign