The case involved plaintiff Marie Becton, an 85-year-old widow, who filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking compensation for approximately twenty years of reduced Social Security survivor and retirement benefits, which she attributed to the Government Pension Offset and related provisions of the Social Security Act; she raised constitutional, statutory, and civil rights challenges to those provisions and to limits on judicial review. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3). The core reasoning was that the Tucker Act confers jurisdiction only over claims based on contracts, tax refunds, or money-mandating constitutional or statutory provisions, but the cited provisions governing Social Security benefits do not mandate the payment of money damages in this context; additionally, Becton had not exhausted required administrative remedies before the Social Security Administration, precluding transfer to another court.
In Crout v. United States, a former member of the Washington Army National Guard alleged that his 1997 honorable discharge was wrongful and retaliatory, causing losses in pay, benefits, and career opportunities, and he sought a declaration of unlawfulness along with back pay and related relief from the Court of Federal Claims. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case under RCFC 12(b)(1), holding that while Tucker Act jurisdiction can cover certain military pay claims, National Guard discharge claims ordinarily fall outside that scope and, more critically, the six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 had long expired since accrual in 1997. The court further reasoned that neither the plaintiff's later administrative requests to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records nor any alleged subsequent discovery of record issues could toll or revive the jurisdictional limitations period.
This case involved a bid protest filed in the Court of Federal Claims by Stevens Aerospace and Defense Systems, LLC and iAccess Technologies, Inc., challenging the U.S. Air Force's award of a contract to update avionics on T-6A trainer aircraft and simulators to intervenor Borsight, Inc. The plaintiffs contested the agency's technical evaluations, communications with offerors, and decision-making methodology under a best-value procurement process. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the administrative record and granted the cross-motions filed by the United States and Borsight. It held that the Air Force's actions fell within the wide discretion afforded to agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act and that the plaintiffs had not shown the award decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court further noted that it lacks authority to substitute its judgment for the agency's or to demand more detailed internal reasoning than the APA requires.
This case is a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the U.S. Marshals Service's award of a contract for the security, storage, and management of seized cryptocurrency assets to intervenor Command Services & Support, Inc. The plaintiff, Wave Digital Assets, LLC, alleged flaws in the evaluation process under the solicitation's factors for experience, technical capability, and price. The court denied Wave's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the cross-motions filed by the United States and the intervenor. It reasoned that review is limited to the record at the time of the award decision, which preceded any subsequent events such as theft allegations against the awardee's employee, and that the plaintiff had not shown prejudicial error in the agency's initial evaluation. The court noted that issues of post-award contract administration fall outside the scope of the protest.
Plaintiff Sophirian Kim filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a refund of over $150,000 in 2020 federal income taxes, asserting that she is a citizen of California but not of the United States and therefore had no taxable income from U.S. sources. The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that the claim rests on a legally untenable premise because California has been a state for more than 175 years and the Fourteenth Amendment confers U.S. citizenship on persons born or naturalized in the United States. The court further reasoned that a complaint grounded in this frivolous theory of non-liability fails to state a plausible claim for relief and that amendment would be futile.
The case involved plaintiff Andrea Nicole Berry's attempt to pursue claims against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims after her previous similar action had been dismissed. The court had initially dismissed the case on res judicata grounds, finding the claims identical to those in the prior suit barred by the statute of limitations, and also noted her failure to prosecute. Upon her motion for reconsideration, the court denied the request, holding that no new arguments, evidence, or changes in law were presented to warrant reconsideration, and that additional claims raised under Title VII and sounding in tort fell outside the court's jurisdiction.