SCOTUS Briefs

2002 Supreme Court term

NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ET AL.

Dockets 02-196Argued
Argued
March 4, 2003
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to National Park Hospitality Association, the case concerns whether the Contract Disputes Act applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private concessioners.

According to National Park Hospitality Association, a regulation states that National Park Service concession contracts are not subject to the CDA, which the petitioner argues is arbitrary because some contracts are subject to the CDA.

The petitioner asserts that three contracts have been found subject to the CDA.

Approximately 78 percent of concession contracts involve no capital improvements.

Concessioners who build facilities hold a leasehold surrender interest equal to construction cost plus inflation minus depreciation, and cannot be removed until that interest is paid.

According to Congress, Congress enacted the 1998 act with awareness that concessioners would build facilities, reflecting the view that concession contracts are not procurement contracts.

The Government claims that no government funds were used in the contracts, a phrase it introduced for this case.

The Government argues it is the sole beneficiary of contractual provisions requiring construction, repair, and maintenance of park facilities.

The Court requested supplemental briefs on the issue of ripeness, due by 3:00 p.m. Friday.

Background and question before the Court

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked preliminary questions of Mr. Geller.

Justice Scalia asked a follow‑up question.

According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned the Government’s authority to include damage‑for‑delay provisions in contracts.

Justice Kennedy asked whether the district court found the provision critical to proceeding with the contract.

According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy inquired about the remedies available in case of breach.

Justice Kennedy asked whether the contract is a procurement contract.

According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether the parties wanted to pay pre‑judgment interest.

Justice Ginsburg asked whether the claim was ripe and why it had not been discussed earlier.

Justice Breyer asked about the Government’s position on the case.

The Court requested supplemental briefs on ripeness, due by 3:00 p.m. Friday.

What each side argues

National Park Hospitality Association (Petitioner)

According to National Park Hospitality Association, the Contract Disputes Act should apply to contracts between the National Park Service and private concessioners.

According to National Park Hospitality Association, a regulation that categorically excludes National Park Service concession contracts from the CDA is arbitrary because some contracts are subject to the CDA.

According to National Park Hospitality Association, the petitioner is harmed because concessioners need to know their rights under the contract when deciding whether and how much to bid.

Department of the Interior (Respondent)

According to Government, only three cases have applied the CDA to national park concessions, and the Government prevailed on the merits in two of them.

According to Government, the Government is the sole beneficiary of contractual provisions requiring construction, repair, and maintenance of facilities in the national parks.

What happened at oral argument

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked preliminary questions of Mr. Geller.

Justice Scalia asked a follow‑up question.

According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy questioned the Government’s authority to include damage‑for‑delay provisions in contracts.

Justice Kennedy asked whether the district court found the provision critical to proceeding with the contract.

According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy inquired about the remedies available in case of breach.

Justice Kennedy asked whether the contract is a procurement contract.

According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether the parties wanted to pay pre‑judgment interest.

Justice Ginsburg asked whether the claim was ripe and why it had not been discussed earlier.

Justice Breyer asked about the Government’s position on the case.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

According to National Park Hospitality Association, the petitioner argues that determining whether the CDA applies is important for concessioners to know their rights when deciding whether and how much to bid on a contract.

According to Mr. Geller, the petitioner emphasizes that they need to know now whether they can challenge the regulation and contract terms, which affects their bidding decisions.

According to Government, the Government asserts that it is the sole beneficiary of contractual provisions requiring construction, repair, and maintenance of facilities in the national parks.

According to Congress, congress, in enacting the 1998 act, indicated that concession contracts were not intended to be procurement contracts.

The Court and the parties raised the issue of ripeness, questioning whether the claim is ready for adjudication.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 1fe2d96764864b025893-r1-14c45a11a5c2f957.pdforal argument transcript
    Archived copy

Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.