Whether the Federal Circuit's rule that no degree of government involvement or control over a contract between a government contractor and a third party can create an implied contract binding the government should be overruled

QUESTION PRESENTED In Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579 (1934) the Court held that when the United States enters into contractual relations, its rights and duties therein are governed generally by the law applicable to contracts between private individuals. In Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592, 597 (1923) the Court held that an impliedin-fact contract is one “founded upon a meeting of the minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.” In Cienega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Turping et al. v. United States, 913 F.3d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and its ruling below, the Federal Circuit has created a contrary rule that holds that no degree of government involvement or control over a contract between a government contractor and a third party can create an implied contract between the government and that third party under the Tucker Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(1). The Question Presented Is: Whether the Federal Circuit’s rule — that no degree of government involvement or control over a contract between a government contractor and a third party — can create an implied contract binding the government, should be overruled.