Steinberg v. United States Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man with a free ticket to the presidential inauguration sued the government for breach of contract after being denied entry. The court found no contract existed due to a lack of consideration and mutual intent to be bound.
Legal Significance: Illustrates that government-issued gratuitous promises, like free event tickets, generally lack the consideration and mutual intent necessary to form an enforceable contract, even if the recipient incurs expenses in reliance on the promise.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC) announced it would distribute approximately 240,000 complimentary tickets for the 2009 presidential inauguration. The plaintiff, Michael Steinberg, obtained two tickets from his Congressman for a reserved viewing area. The tickets contained a warning to “arrive early due to large crowds.” After obtaining the tickets, Steinberg incurred expenses traveling to Washington, D.C. On the day of the inauguration, he and his guest arrived at the designated section but were denied entry. Steinberg filed suit against the United States, initially on a theory of promissory estoppel, later amended to a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. He argued that his travel expenses constituted a detriment that served as consideration, and that the government’s distribution of a ticket was an offer that he accepted, creating a binding contract to provide him a spot in the viewing area.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the government’s issuance of a free, revocable ticket to a public event create an enforceable implied-in-fact contract obligating it to admit the ticketholder?
No, the issuance of a free ticket did not create an enforceable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the government’s issuance of a free, revocable ticket to a public event create an enforceable implied-in-fact contract obligating it to admit the ticketholder?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that a gratuitous promise from the government does not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Legal Rule
To establish a valid implied-in-fact contract with the United States, a plaintiff Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nu
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim under the traditional elements of contract Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Court of Federal Claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over promissory estoppel