United States v. Hopkins

Background

A civilian employee of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service was fired and his widow sued, claiming wrongful discharge. She said the worker held an implied contract of employment with the exchange and invoked the Tucker Act so the Court of Claims could hear the case. The Government moved to dismiss, and the Court of Claims found it had jurisdiction because a 1970 law treated contracts with the exchanges as contracts with the United States. The Supreme Court agreed to decide a conflict with another appeals court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the 1970 amendment’s phrase “any express or implied contract” covers employment agreements with military post exchanges. It held that the statute’s plain words include employment contracts, so an allegation of breach of such a contract is enough to resist dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court declined to decide here whether this particular worker was an appointed employee or held his job by contract, noting regulations allow both appointment and contract hiring. The Court vacated the lower court’s finding that the worker had been employed by contract and sent the case back for more fact‑finding. It also noted that claims based on violation of regulations or on constitutional due process were foreclosed by recent precedent.

Real world impact

People who allege contractual employment with Army and Air Force exchanges can bring contract claims in the Court of Claims, but each worker’s actual status—appointed or contractual—must be proved in later proceedings. This decision resolves a jurisdictional gap but is not a final ruling on the merits of any discharge claim.

Dissents or concurrances

Mr. Justice Powell dissented, adopting the reasoning of a dissent in the Court of Claims.