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 General Katyal, the dispute concerns a multi‑billion‑dollar contract in which the petitioner seeks technology that was not specifically identified in the contract.
The petitioner argues that when the United States asserts the state‑secrets privilege, it must assume certain responsibilities, especially when the United States is the moving party.
Background and question before the Court
According to General Katyal, the contract at issue contains FAR 52.233‑1(h), which mandates performance and compliance even while a contracting officer’s decision is under appeal.
What each side argues
Petitioner (General Dynamics Corporation)
According to General Katyal, he notes that it is odd to bid on a multi‑billion‑dollar contract without specifying the technology the government must provide.
According to General Katyal, he points to FAR 52.233‑1(h) as requiring performance and compliance even while the contract is under appeal.
According to General Katyal, he argues that the government can offset the $1.35 billion claim against future contracts, removing the courts from the dispute.
Respondent (United States)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the case and its consolidation with Boeing.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy raised due‑process components: reasonableness, necessity, and unconscionability.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the contract specified information the government agreed to give the petitioner.
Justice Scalia asked whether it was impossible to meet the contract’s weight requirements.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor later requested a citation to footnote 605(b).
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the government could withhold the information from other contracts of the same contractors.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia referenced the “go away” principle of jurisprudence.
- [1] 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdf, p. 36
- [3] 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdf, p. 38
- [4] 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdf, p. 39
- [5] 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdf, p. 56
- [6] 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdf, p. 57
- [7] 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdf, p. 60
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 008756a3cc17ec7345fe-r1-1585fe0dc7d9ec23.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.