The opinion of the court was delivered by: GREEN
JUNE L. GREEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A. Backpay as an Award of Damages Against the United States
Absent a statutory waiver, the United States as a sovereign is immune from suit. The Administrative Procedure Act provides such a waiver for:
an action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority . . .
5 U.S.C. § 702 (1982) (emphasis added). This section provides the basis for the Court's equitable order that EPA instate Hubbard in a position as a criminal investigator at EPA. Hubbard's additional claim for backpay presents the question whether backpay should be considered "relief other than money damages" within the meaning of this provision. If it is not, then Hubbard's claim must fail, for the Court has previously ruled that he is not entitled to recovery under the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 (1982). See Hubbard v. U.S. E.P.A. Admin., 257 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 809 F.2d 1, 4 n. 5 (1986) (noting plaintiff's failure to appeal this ruling), aff'd on reh'g en banc, Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
The parties' submissions on this complex issue of sovereign immunity are quite sparse. The Court's own research shows that this issue is far from clear. However, upon reconsideration, the Court concludes that a claim for backpay in these circumstances is essentially a claim for compensatory money damages. As such, it exceeds the limited waiver of statutory immunity found in Section 702.
In a recent Supreme Court case construing Section 702, the state of Massachusetts sued the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") over its refusal to reimburse the state under the Medicaid program for certain state services to mentally retarded persons. See Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 101 L. Ed. 2d 749, 108 S. Ct. 2722 (1988). In its opinion, the Court quoted extensively from a decision by this circuit, Maryland Department of Human Resources v. HHS, 246 U.S. App. D.C. 180, 763 F.2d 1441 (D.C.Cir. 1985). The Supreme Court found Massachusetts' claim similar to Maryland's, which sought "funds to which a statute allegedly entitles it, rather than money in compensation for the losses, whatever they may be, that Maryland will suffer or has suffered by virtue of the withholding of those funds." 487 U.S. at 895. The fact that the states' claims were for recovery of money does not transform the nature of the relief sought -- specific relief -- to relief in the form of damages. See id.
In contrast, Hubbard's request for specific relief -- instatement -- has been granted. The Court is without authority under section 702 to order further relief. Hubbard is not entitled to the retroactive benefits of a position to which he has never been instated. The established rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 402, 47 L. Ed. 2d 114, 96 S. Ct. 948 (1976) (quoting United States v. McLean, 95 U.S. 750, 24 L. Ed. 579 (1878); Ganse v. United States, 180 Ct. Cl. 183, 186, 376 F.2d 900, 902 (1967)). In Testan, civil servants who had been classified at too low a grade level were denied back pay and retroactive reclassification. The Court characterized their claim as one for the benefit of positions to which they should have been, but were not, appointed. 424 U.S. at 402. Citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662, 94 S. Ct. 1347 (1974), the Court noted that there was a difference between prospective reclassification, on the one hand, and retroactive reclassification resulting in money damages, on the other. Testan at 403. The Court also noted that if the plaintiffs were correct in their claims for retroactive relief and money damages, many federal statutes -- such as the Back Pay Act -- that expressly provide money damages against the United States in limited circumstances would be rendered superfluous. Id. at 404. This Court agrees. Plaintiff's claim for backpay as part of the Court's order of equitable relief is denied.
B. The Pickering Balance and the Constitutional Violation
There is no merit to defendant's suggestion that the Court has made an error of law in its application of the balancing test set forth by the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 20 L. Ed. 2d 811, 88 S. Ct. 1731 (1968). Defendant suggests that the Court failed to consider the "content, form, and context of a given statement, as revealed by the whole record." See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147, 75 L. Ed. 2d 708, 103 S. Ct. 1684 (1983). The defendant argues that the time, place, manner and surrounding context of Hubbard's communication warrant a finding that his speech was not about a matter of public concern and, thus, was not protected by the first amendment.
To the contrary, the Court had considered the context of Hubbard's speech in arriving at its decision. The context of Hubbard's speech supports the Court's earlier findings. The intelligence which sparked the entire investigation of drug use on Capitol Hill came from Jack Mitchell and Indy Badwahr, reporters working with columnist Jack Anderson. And it was United States Representative Robert K. Dornan who authorized the use of his office and telephone number as a front for Hubbard's undercover work on Capitol Hill. Conducting an investigation with the aid of persons outside the police organization carries a certain amount of risk of unauthorized or premature disclosure. It appears to the Court that in authorizing this investigation, the Metropolitan Police Department made a judgment that the benefits of cooperation in this case ...