In the case of Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Glover Construction Co., 1979, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cecil D. Andrus and other appellants from the Department of Interior against Glover Construction Company's claim for damages due to a breach in contract related to delays caused by environmental impact studies required under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The construction company had been contracted by federal agencies for road construction projects in Utah and Arizona but faced delays because necessary environmental assessments were not completed on time. The court held that NEPA did not create any implied private right to sue for damages resulting from noncompliance with its provisions; it merely prohibited uninformed agency action without specifying consequences if this prohibition was violated. Therefore, while an injunction might be obtained against such action or omission causing delay, no monetary compensation could be claimed as there was no provision within NEPA itself providing a damage remedy.

In the dissenting opinion for Andrus v. Glover Construction Co., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a clause in a contract between Glover Construction and the government, which allowed for equitable adjustments if there were changes to federal laws or regulations that increased costs. He argued that this provision should be interpreted broadly to include any change in law or regulation affecting performance cost, not just those directly related to construction operations as determined by the majority. According to him, such an interpretation would better align with common sense and commercial practice where parties generally intend "changes" clauses like these ones to allocate risks associated with unforeseen legal changes impacting their contractual obligations. Furthermore, he criticized the court’s reliance on legislative history instead of focusing on clear statutory language.