October Term 2002 · Docket 02-196
Does the Contract Disputes Act cover National Park concession contracts?
Private park operators seek Contract Disputes Act coverage. The Interior Department opposes this application.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Geller argued the Act applies to park concession contracts.
Mr. Elwood argued the Act does not apply to these contracts.
Mr. Elwood cited precedent against facial invalidation of regulations.
Mr. Geller cited 28 U.S.C. 1491(b) for district court jurisdiction.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 9-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the Contract Disputes Act. It applies to National Park Service concession contracts. These contracts cover visitor services and facility maintenance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 5-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 4, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 9-17
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Contract Disputes Act to apply to their park contracts.
The Interior Department wants the Act to exclude these specific contracts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 5-7
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the Act covers challenges to proposed government contract terms.
The Interior Department argues the Act does not apply to these park contracts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 5-7
What the justices asked
Why does the government oppose applying the Contract Disputes Act here?
What is at stake for the government in not applying it?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 9-17
Why it matters
The outcome defines dispute resolution for park concessioners. It affects how private operators resolve contract conflicts with the government.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 5-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 9-17 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 9-17
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 34, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 34, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 31-1 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 31-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 5-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.