Talk:Tucker Act

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act[edit]

The Tucker Act is very important to Price-Anderson, since in the event of a nuclear accident where compensation claims exceed $10 billion, Congress is required to act to cover the excess claims. The Supreme Court specifically stated that if Congress didn't act, te Tucker Act could be invoked. Simesa 08:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other aspects of the Tucker Act[edit]

I believe at least part of 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a) is also a "descendant" of the Tucker Act (maybe other parts of 28 USC as well??), if somebody wants to expand the scope of this article. I'd love to look into it myself, but not right now. A moderately interesting case on the Tucker Act in the context of taxation, for example, is United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co., 237 U.S. 28 (1915). Famspear 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 28 USC 1346(a), giving federal courts concurrent jurisdiction, is often referred to as "little tucker act"; it is mentioned in the article. I did not feel that it needed to be specifically referred, however.

Also, I'm deleting the mention of "discretionary" budget. I'm pretty sure if the Congress expressly allowed an agency to take funds out of its appropriations for the specific purpose of paying a certain kind of judgments, courts would have no problem holding that the agency must follow congressional directive. For example, U.S. Appropriations Law Manual published by the GAO (which used to oversea the U.S. Treasury Fund and which manual is still used by U.S. Treasury) makes no distinction between discretionary budget and mandatory budget; the issue is congressional intent. Saltyseaweed 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

Discuss at Wonderlich Act's talk page. BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]