stating, that, 7 "[d]espite the clarity of these earlier decisions [finding no equitable estoppel against the Government], dicta in our more recent cases have suggested the possibility that there might be some situation in which estoppel against the Government could be appropriate," but noting that "we have reversed every finding of estoppel [against the Government] that we have reviewed"
How later courts described this case
- stating, that, 7 "[d]espite the clarity of these earlier decisions [finding no equitable estoppel against the Government], dicta in our more recent cases have suggested the possibility that there might be some situation in which estoppel against the Government could be appropriate," but noting that "we have reversed every finding of estoppel [against the Government] that we have reviewed"
- stating, that, “[d]e-spite the clarity of these earlier decisions [finding no equitable estoppel against the Government], dicta in our more recent cases have suggested the possibility that there might be some situation in which estoppel against the Government could be appropriate,” but noting that “we have reversed every finding of estoppel [against the Government] that we have reviewed”
- recognizing that the Court’s position has historically been for equitable estoppel not to lie against the federal government as it lies against private litigants and while not closing the possibility of applying it against the government under certain circumstances, the Court decided to “leave for another day whether an estoppel claim could ever succeed against the Government.”
- holding that payments of money from the federal treasury are limited by the Appropriations Clause to those authorized by statute, and that erroneous advice given by a government employee to a claimant for benefits cannot estop the government from denying benefits not otherwise permitted by law
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Hammond ex rel. Estate of Hammond v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 3d 436 (2015)
Mgmt v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990) is distinguishable because the funds here were already appropriated for payment by the DOL’s final decision to pay the claim and James Hammond signing the EN-20 Form.
Distinguished by Cienega Gardens v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 196 (1995)
Richmond, on the other hand, conveys the general rule that a person claiming entitlement to a government benefit cannot use erroneous or unauthorized information given by a government employee to estop the government from disputing the entitlement. 496 U.S. at 430-34, 110 S.Ct. at 2474-76. Richmond is inapplicable simply because plaintiffs are not relying on an estoppel theory to advance their cause.
Distinguished by Janowsky v. United States, 37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,148 (1991)
Richmond is also distinguishable from the quantum meruit cases, for in Richmond there was no benefit conferred on the government.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
concurring in the judgment.
Although I join the Court’s judgment, I cannot accept its reasoning. The Appropriations Clause of the Constitution has nothing to do with this case. Payments of pension benefits to retired and disabled federal servants are made “in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” even if in particular cases they are the product of a mistaken interpretation of a statute or regulation. The Constitution contemplates appropriations that cover programs—not individual appropriations for individual payments. The Court’s creative reliance on constitutional text is nothing but a red herring.
The dispute in this case is not about whether an appropriation has been made; it is instead about what rules govern administration of an appropriation that has been made. Once the issue is appropriately framed, it quickly becomes obvious *436 that the Court’s resolution of it is untenable. Three hypothetical changes in the facts of this case will illustrate the error in the Court’s approach. Assume, first, that the forfeiture involved a permanent and total loss of pension benefits rather than a 6-month hiatus. Suppose also that respondent was a disabled serviceman, totally incapable of productive work, who was promised that his benefits would be unaffected if he enlisted in the Reserve forces to show his continuing commitment to his country. Finally, assume that respondent was activated briefly for the sole purpose of enhancing his earnings, thereby depriving him of his pension permanently. Would the Court apply the harsh rule against estoppel that it announces today? I think not. Unless it found in the statute some unambiguous abrogation of estoppel principles, the Court would apply them to nullify the forfeiture. In doing so, the Court would construe the statute in a way consistent with congressional intent and would ensure that the Executive administered the funds appropriated in a manner consistent with the terms of the appropriation.
This case, however, does not involve such extreme facts. Respondent’s loss of benefits was serious but temporary, and, even if we assume that respondent was not adequately compensated for the stress of his increased workload, his additional earnings certainly mitigated the shortfall in benefits. I agree with Justice Marshall that there are strong equities favoring respondent’s position, but I am persuaded that unless the 5-to-4 decision in Federal Crop Ins. Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U. S. 380 (1947), is repudiated by Congress or this Court, this kind of maladministration must be tolerated. I think the case is closer to Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U. S. 785 (1981), and Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U. S. 51 (1984), than to Moser v. United States, 341 U. S. 41 (1951), and United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp., 411 U. S. 655 (1973). Accordingly, I concur in the Court’s judgment but not its opinion.