On behalf of the Professional Services Council (PSC), this past week Covington filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the petitioner in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal (No. 24-758). The brief urges the Court to grant certiorari and, ultimately, to hold that government contractors are entitled to immediately appeal a district court’s denial of derivative sovereign immunity under the collateral order doctrine.

Nearly a century ago, the Supreme Court in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), recognized that contractors are entitled to derivative sovereign immunity for actions taken pursuant to federal directives. Under Yearsley, contractors are immune from suit when: (1) the contractor performs acts pursuant to a valid authorization of Congress, and (2) the contractor does not exceed the scope of that authority.

In recent years, appellate courts have embraced an expansive view of Yearsley immunity and reaffirmed the breadth of that immunity. However, when a district court denies a contractor’s claim of immunity, the appellate courts are split as to whether such denial can be immediately appealed under the collateral order doctrine. Following the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Menocal, the circuits are now split 5-3, with the majority rejecting the right to an immediate appeal. The practical import of that rejection is that contractors who may be immune from suit are forced to fully litigate a case, through discovery and trial, prior to gaining the right to appellate review.

As explained in the amicus brief, the rule adopted by the Tenth Circuit harms federal contractors and the government. By delaying resolution of a threshold immunity defense, the holding dramatically increases contractor litigation costs, which may reduce the number of contractors willing to participate in the procurement process, resulting in less competition and higher costs. Given the government’s reliance on contractors to support a variety of vital government functions, the ruling creates unwarranted uncertainties and risks that will damage the government’s ability to efficiently and effectively serve the public.

The Supreme Court is likely to consider the Menocal petition in April. If the Court were to grant review, resolution of the circuit split would have profound implications for the contracting community.

Photo of Raymond Biagini Raymond Biagini

A distinguished counselor and litigator, Raymond Biagini has risen to national prominence in a number of high-profile tort cases, defending commercial and government contractors in:

“Contractor on the Battlefield” tort litigation;
the Exxon Valdez litigation;
the Cell Phone Radiation Hazards lawsuits;
the “Fen-Phen”…

A distinguished counselor and litigator, Raymond Biagini has risen to national prominence in a number of high-profile tort cases, defending commercial and government contractors in:

“Contractor on the Battlefield” tort litigation;
the Exxon Valdez litigation;
the Cell Phone Radiation Hazards lawsuits;
the “Fen-Phen” litigation;
the nationwide Repetitive Stress Injury suits;
claims arising out of “friendly fire” accidents during Operation Desert Storm; and
“war crimes” allegations filed against manufacturers of military weapons systems sold to Israel.

Ray is widely recognized for his expertise in defending “contractors on the battlefield” in tort litigation, and he has established ground-breaking legal principles at the federal appellate level which immunize defense contractors from tort liability arising out of combatant scenarios.

Ray also has an extensive product liability prevention practice, counseling companies on mechanisms for reducing their tort exposure for products and services sold to government and commercial entities. He is significantly involved in counseling companies selling “homeland security” products and services, such as chemical/biological detection devices, perimeter security systems, biometric identity products, and airport security systems. Ray conceptualized and authored key provisions of the SAFETY Act, a new federal statute that is part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The SAFETY Act protects companies from tort lawsuits arising out of the sale of homeland security products and services. 

Ray has represented some of the world’s largest aerospace, defense and pharmaceutical companies, including Kellogg Brown & Root, Lockheed Martin, BAE SYSTEMS, Boeing, Textron, SAIC, Teledyne, Eon Labs, Unisys, and Philips Electronics. He is a frequent public speaker on risk mitigation techniques.

Photo of Daniel Russell Jr. Daniel Russell Jr.

Dan Russell represents government contractors in complex, high-stakes litigation. Over the past two decades, Dan has served as lead counsel for some of the largest U.S. defense contractors in a broad range of contract disputes and tort claims, including cases valued well in…

Dan Russell represents government contractors in complex, high-stakes litigation. Over the past two decades, Dan has served as lead counsel for some of the largest U.S. defense contractors in a broad range of contract disputes and tort claims, including cases valued well in excess of $100 million.

Dan has experience litigating contract claims and disputes before federal judges and juries, the Boards of Contract Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, including matters arising out of terminations, cost-allowability disputes, defective pricing claims, prime-sub disputes, and claims under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). Dan has also represented contractors in a myriad of tort suits arising out of work performed for the federal government. Dan has unparalleled experience defending “contractor on the battlefield” tort suits involving contracts performed during wartime or other high-risk, contingency environments. Dan has obtained complete dismissals of tort suits based on an array of federal-law-based defenses, including the government contractor defense, the political question doctrine, federal preemption, and derivative sovereign immunity.

Dan has litigated a variety of other matters involving government contracts and uniquely-federal issues, including: cases brought under the civil False Claims Act (FCA); insurance coverage matters for federal contractors; claims against federal agencies brought under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act; and regulatory enforcement actions.

At the appellate level, Dan has argued cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit. He has also represented clients in matters before numerous other appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition to his litigation practice, Dan regularly provides risk-mitigation counseling for contractors, with a particular focus on strategies to reduce potential exposure to tort claims and other liabilities in connection with the performance of high-risk government contracts.

Evan Matsuda

Evan Matsuda is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group. He assists clients on a broad range of issues, with a focus on bid protest litigation and regulatory compliance matters. Evan also…

Evan Matsuda is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Practice Group. He assists clients on a broad range of issues, with a focus on bid protest litigation and regulatory compliance matters. Evan also maintains an active pro bono practice focused on international law and security.