Orff v. United States

Background

A group of California farmers and farming entities bought water from a local irrigation district, Westlands, which had a 1963 contract with the federal Bureau of Reclamation. In the early 1990s the Bureau reduced water deliveries after environmental laws and new rules required steps to protect listed fish species. Westlands and other districts sued; the farmers intervened and pressed a claim that the United States breached the 1963 contract and that a 1982 law provision (§390uu) let them sue the Government for money damages as third-party beneficiaries.

Reasoning

The central question was whether §390uu waives the United States’ immunity so these farmers could sue the Government alone. The Court explained that waivers of government immunity must be read narrowly. §390uu says consent is “to join the United States as a necessary party defendant,” language the Court read as allowing joinder of the United States in suits between other parties when the United States’ presence is necessary (the Rule 19 concept). The Court contrasted that limited phrasing with broader statutes that let people sue the United States directly, and concluded §390uu does not permit a plaintiff to bring a suit solely against the United States.

Real world impact

Under this ruling, non-contracting landowners and farmers cannot rely on §390uu to sue the United States alone for reduced water deliveries. They may need a suit between contracting parties that joins the United States or to pursue claims in other forums described by broader statutes. The Court did not resolve other questions about damages or whether §390uu allows suits by noncontracting entities.