Tucker Act

[4] In United States v. Wunderlich (1951), the Supreme Court held that procurement agencies could preclude judicial review of their decisions relating to contract disputes (except as to fraud issues) by exacting the contractor's acquiescence in contract clauses making agency board's decisions final both as to fact and law.

Under the terms of this Act, board decisions could be accorded no finality on questions of law, but findings could be made final as to fact issues so far as supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, etc., and thus the statute restored a significant role to the Court of Claims.

The Bianchi decision appeared to eliminate any function for these commissioners to perform as to most contract disputes clause cases, for they were primarily takers of testimony and fact finders.

In other than Wunderlich cases, cross-motions for summary judgment went before the Article III judges with no participation by the commissioners.

In Wunderlich cases, the recommended opinion of the commissioner was, unless acquiesced in by both parties, considered on exceptions, oral arguments, and new briefs by the Article III judges.

The Act was named after Congressman John Randolph Tucker, of Virginia, who introduced it as a substitute for four other competing measures on government claims being considered by the House Judiciary Committee.