Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety · ¶117

But even when using the analogy for those purposes, the Court has always viewed it cautiously. We have consistently refused to “imply . . . that suits under Spending Clause legislation are suits in contract, or that contract-law principles apply to all issues that they raise.” Id., at 189, n. 2; see also Sossamon, 563 U. S., at 290 (same); Cum mings, 596 U. S., at 226 (declining to “incorporat[e] the law of contract remedies wholesale”). Some Justices have warily accepted the contract analogy in certain contexts while cautioning that it “may fail” elsewhere. Barnes, 536 U. S., at 191 (Souter, J., concurring). Others have protested its use as “novel.” Id., at 192 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); Talevski, 599 U. S., at 193 (BARRETT, J., joined by ROBERTS, C. J., concurring). Still others have cast doubt on it as “an imperfect way” to interpret Spending Clause legislation. Cummings,…

slip opinion, revised 6/28/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.