Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶44

Instead, without a federal statute, contractors ordinarily have a constitutional defense only when the contractor is being sued precisely for accomplishing what the Federal Government requested. In Yearsley, a contractor, acting under military orders, built dikes on the Missouri River and “washed away a part of petitioners' land” as a result. 309 U. S., at 19. The landowners sued and secured a judgment against the contractor. Id., at 20. This Court reversed. The Court explained that “if th[e] authority to carry out the project was validly conferred . . . there is no liability on the part of the contractor for executing its will.” Id., at 20– 21. But, by its own terms, Yearsley was limited: “The Court contrasted with Yearsley cases in which a Government agent had `exceeded his authority' or the authority `was not validly conferred'; in those circumstances, the Court said, the agent could…

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