Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal · ¶28

This Court held that there was “no liability on the part of the contractor.” Id., at 21. Drawing from multiple precedents involving agency law, the Court explained that a contractor acting as an agent of the Government could be held liable for injurious conduct in only two circumstances: when “he exceeded his authority” or when that authority “was not validly conferred.” Ibid. Here, neither circumstance obtained. As to the second, the Court explained that the Government had “validly” authorized the company to food the Yearsleys' land, because the Government itself possessed that legal right and had properly delegated it by contract. Id., at 21–22. And as to the first, the Court concluded that all the company's work had stayed within the bounds of the authority given: The Government had provided instructions, and the contractor had merely “execut[ed] its will.” Id., at 20–21. Given both…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.