Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Department Of The Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.

• 1998 • 525 U.S. 255 • Rehnquist Court
The Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 1998 case involved a dispute over whether a contractor (Blue Fox) could obtain an equitable lien on funds held by the government (Department of the Army). The issue arose when a prime contractor hired by the Department failed to pay Blue Fox for its subcontracted work. Blue Fox sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that it was entitled to an equitable lien against funds still owed by the government to the prime contractor....Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1998
Docket: 97-1642
525 U.S. 255
119 S. Ct. 687
142 L. Ed. 2d 718
1999 U.S. LEXIS 746
Argued: Dec 01, 1998

Department Of The Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 1998 case involved a dispute over whether a contractor (Blue Fox) could obtain an equitable lien on funds held by the government (Department of the Army). The issue arose when a prime contractor hired by the Department failed to pay Blue Fox for its subcontracted work. Blue Fox sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that it was entitled to an equitable lien against funds still owed by the government to the prime contractor. However, in this case, Supreme Court ruled against Blue Fox stating that sovereign immunity prevented them from imposing such liens on public property or money unless Congress explicitly waived this immunity. The court found no such waiver in either federal common law or statute applicable here - particularly not within Miller Act which protects payment rights of subcontractors in federal construction projects but does not grant explicit consent for suits seeking recovery directly from U.S Government.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., Justice Stevens argued that a contractor should be able to obtain an equitable lien on funds held by a government agency if those funds were intended to pay for work performed by that contractor. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of sovereign immunity and believed it was not applicable in this case because Blue Fox was not seeking damages from public treasury but rather specific relief tied directly to its unpaid labor and materials. Furthermore, he pointed out that allowing such liens would provide necessary protection for subcontractors who otherwise have limited means of securing payment when prime contractors default on their obligations. The denial of such remedy, according to him, could lead to unjust enrichment at taxpayer’s expense as government agencies might end up benefiting from goods or services they did not fully pay for.

Opinion written by Justice WHRehnquist
Decided: Jan 20, 1999
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms