SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-1360

   In The Supreme Court Of The United States

   October Term, 1990

   On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Third Circuit

   Supplemental Brief For The United States

   In this case, petitioner seeks further review of the question
whether the Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. 741 et seq., waives the
sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to maritime tort
claims arising out of the performance of discretionary governmental
functions.  Petitioner argues that there is a conflict on that
question between Lane v. United States, 529 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1975),
and decisions of other courts of appeals.  See Pet. 21-24.  For
reasons stated in detail in our brief in opposition, it is our
position that -- in light of intervening decisions in other circuits
and in the Fourth Circuit itself -- there is no conflict warranting
this Court's review.  See Br. in Opp. 13-14.

   We are filing this brief to call the Court's attention to the
Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Tiffany v. United States, Nos.
90-3014, 90-3022 (Apr. 30, 1991).  (A copy of this opinion is attached
as an appendix.) In Tiffany, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an action
against the United States under the SIAA and the Death on the High
Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. App. 761-767, on the ground that entertaining the
action would "violate separation of powers principles which inform the
discretionary function exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act and
the Suits in Admiralty Act." App., infra, 2a.  In reaching that
conclusion, the court cited to decisions from other circuits
recognizing such an exception to the SIAA (including the court of
appeals' decision in the instant case), and it specifically concluded
that Lane had been narrowed by Faust v. South Carolina State Highway
Dep't, 721 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1983).  App., infra, 12a-13a & n.*.  In
our view, the opinion lends additional support to our position that
there is no conflict between the Fourth Circuit and other circuits
that calls for this Court's review.

   Respectfully submitted.

   KENNETH W. STARR

      Solicitor General

   MAY 1991

   APPENDIX