Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court held 5/27/03 that a facial challenge to a regulation promulgated by the National Park Service, which defines the term “concession contract,” was not ripe for judicial review. The regulation at issue, 36 C.F.R. § 51.3, defines “concession contracts” as “not contracts within the meaning of” the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (“CDA”), 41 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq., which provides certain procedural safeguards to parties who contract with the federal government. Petitioner, a non-profit trade association that represents concessioners doing business in the national parks, challenged the validity of the National Park Service regulation. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that petitioner’s challenge was not ripe for judicial review because it had failed to demonstrate (1) hardship; and (2) that the issue presented was ripe for judicial review. On the hardship prong, the Court reasoned that the regulation merely expresses the Park Service’s view on whether a concession contract is a contract within the meaning of the CDA, but does not create any “adverse effects of a strictly legal kind” because the Park Service is not empowered to administer the CDA. On the ripeness prong, the Court held that, although the issue presented was a “purely legal one,” further factual development and a concrete dispute would aid judicial resolution of this issue. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, on the basis that petitioner lacked standing because it had not alleged a sufficient injury in fact. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented. This case is important to any business that contracts to provide goods or services to the federal government.