David Austin Tapp

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.

civil rightsfederal powerhealthcareprocedure

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.

federal powerprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryfederal power

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

taxesfederal power

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a motion for class certification by named plaintiffs, personal services contractors with USAID, whose contracts were terminated via mass notices between February and April 2025 as part of agency changes. Plaintiffs alleged the terminations breached their contracts and sought damages, proposing a class of over one thousand similarly situated contractors located across various countries. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion, finding that the class met all requirements under RCFC 23, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance of common questions, and superiority of the class action method for adjudication. The court reasoned that the contractors shared uniform termination notices, similar contract terms, and common legal claims against the government, making individual joinder impracticable and a class proceeding efficient.

procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In this case, pro se plaintiff Justin Burson sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a $10,055 tax refund plus interest for the 2021 tax year after the IRS disallowed his claimed withholdings and credits, resulting in a balance due. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Burson had not fully paid the assessed tax deficiency and that his suit was filed more than two years after the IRS notice of disallowance. The court granted the motion under RCFC 12(b)(1), holding that the full-payment rule from Flora v. United States is a jurisdictional prerequisite that Burson failed to meet, as his tax liability remained unpaid. The court further noted that the claim was untimely and that Burson's arguments, including reliance on 26 U.S.C. § 905(c), did not establish a new claim or revive jurisdiction. The case was dismissed without prejudice.

taxesprocedure

This case in the United States Court of Federal Claims concerns plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) following settlement of certain claims against the United States. After an earlier partial grant of fees that required plaintiffs to submit a revised petition excluding costs tied to specific Group 1 plaintiffs and appeals-related work, plaintiffs filed an amended motion seeking approximately $430,317; the government objected on grounds including scope, evidentiary support, and necessity. The court granted the amended request in part, awarding a total of $415,326.51 after determining that plaintiffs had complied with prior directives, that the remaining fees were reasonable, and that certain reductions for disallowed items were appropriate. The judgment was stayed pending the outcome of a related appeal on liability, after which the case was closed.

propertyprocedure

This case is a bid protest filed by Global Connections to Employment, Inc. against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, challenging a federal procurement decision. The court addressed the government's motion to stay proceedings pending an agency ombudsman ruling, which was filed at 5:03 PM on the deadline for submitting the administrative record, twenty-seven days after the underlying agency request. The court denied the motion, finding it untimely and disruptive to the expedited bid protest schedule that the parties had jointly proposed and the court had ordered. It ordered the administrative record to be filed the next business day, adjusted the briefing schedule accordingly, and required the government to show cause why it should not pay the plaintiff's costs for responding to the motion, with the response signed by both counsel and a supervisor.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Berry v. United States, plaintiff Andrea Nicole Berry, proceeding pro se, alleged that the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration breached a contract signed in 2017 for fiscal year 2018 services and sought $500,000 in damages. The United States moved to dismiss the complaint on res judicata grounds, citing Berry's prior identical lawsuit that had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the statute of limitations. The court granted the motion after determining that all three elements of claim preclusion were satisfied: the parties were the same, there was a prior final judgment on the jurisdictional issue, and the claims arose from the identical transactional facts concerning the alleged contract breach. The court also observed that Berry had not responded to the motion to dismiss but relied on res judicata rather than failure to prosecute as the basis for dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Voss v. United States, plaintiff Lorraine Voss, proceeding pro se, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for over $11 million in damages, alleging that the government unlawfully misclassified her as African American rather than American Indigenous Indian, which she claimed defamed her character and violated the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples along with her birth rights. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because the claims were based on international declarations not recognized as conferring jurisdiction, sounded in tort (such as defamation, fraud, and identity theft, which are expressly excluded), and failed to state a plausible Fifth Amendment takings claim due to the absence of any identified government action taking private property. The court noted its independent duty to confirm jurisdiction and applied the standards for pro se litigants without relaxing the jurisdictional requirements. Even construing the claims liberally, no money-mandating source of law provided a basis for relief.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

Cecil Avery, a retired Air Force Technical Sergeant, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking the Airman’s Medal and related benefits for a 1990 civilian rescue, alleging that the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records arbitrarily denied multiple applications despite prior record corrections and a time waiver. The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint. It held that res judicata barred the claims because the same facts and issues had been finally adjudicated in prior BCMR proceedings, and that the court lacked jurisdiction because decisions on military honors are committed to the Secretary’s conclusive authority under statutes such as 10 U.S.C. § 9361 with no manageable judicial standards for review.

procedurefederal power

In Benavides v. United States, a disabled veteran filed a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $65 million in damages for alleged violations of bodily integrity and due process through nonconsensual medical experimentation, involuntary psychiatric confinement, over-vaccination, DNA contamination, breach of his military enlistment contract, and resulting economic harms including lost royalties and earning capacity. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and for failure to state a claim, holding that the Due Process Clause is not money-mandating, that tort-based claims such as false imprisonment, retaliation, personal injury, and interference with contract fall outside the court's jurisdiction and belong exclusively in federal district courts, and that the plaintiff provided no facts supporting viable patent or copyright infringement claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. The court noted its independent duty to confirm jurisdiction, the limited effect of pro se leniency on jurisdictional burdens, and that transfer to another court would not serve the interests of justice.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a group of New York landowners seeking just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for the United States' alleged taking of their property rights in a former railroad corridor. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, claiming that original conveyances granted only railroad easements, recreational trail use exceeded that scope, they regained fee title upon potential abandonment, and the Surface Transportation Board's issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) effected a taking; the United States cross-moved, disputing ownership interests for some plaintiffs and arguing that a pre-existing trail affected causation and compensation. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motions in part and denied them in part, determining that the source documents conveyed easements, trail use went beyond the easements, several plaintiffs held ownership interests, and the NITU constituted a taking of some properties, while finding that other claims failed to establish an interest in the corridor land and that the pre-existing trail could impact the measure of just compensation.

propertyfederal power

The case involved a pro se plaintiff, Lisa Ann Deweese, who filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief against Child Protective Services, styling the action as a qui tam proceeding on behalf of the government while also requesting class certification. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), noting that the allegations did not implicate the United States in a manner that satisfied the Tucker Act's requirements for contract, refund, or money-mandating claims. The reasoning centered on the principle that pro se status does not excuse jurisdictional defects or allow representation of a class under RCFC 83.1, and that broad, unsupported references to statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the False Claims Act failed to establish a plausible claim against the federal government. Related motions were resolved by granting in forma pauperis status solely for dismissal and by unsealing the complaint while keeping exhibits sealed due to sensitive information.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

This case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims involves regulatory takings claims by four plaintiffs against the United States arising from federal preservation statutes (ELIHPA and LIHPRHA) that restricted prepayment of HUD-insured mortgages for low-income housing projects. The United States moved for summary judgment on these claims. The court granted the motion as to plaintiffs 5324 Foothill Apartments, G.P. and Metro West Limited, L.P., finding no genuine dispute of material fact because the plaintiffs could not distinguish their circumstances from binding precedent holding that investors are charged with knowledge of the statutes at the time of purchase. The court denied the motion as to plaintiffs Glenview Gardens, L.P. and Indian Head Manor, L.P. I, concluding that disputed facts regarding the specific conditions of their loans with the Maryland Community Development Administration must be resolved at trial.

propertybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case from the Court of Federal Claims involves landowners who sued the United States alleging a Fifth Amendment taking after the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use converting a rail corridor near Indianapolis into a trail. After years of litigation, two groups of plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees and expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The court denied fees for the first group because their claims were no longer active and their right to additional fees had expired thirty days after final judgment without proper preservation. For the second group, whose liability judgment is on appeal, the court retained jurisdiction, noted the absence of substantive objections from the government, and found the request well-supported, granting fees in part while directing an amended submission to exclude ineligible costs and address reply brief fees.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case involves New York property owners suing the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for an alleged uncompensated taking of their land interests in a 41.1-mile former rail corridor after the Surface Transportation Board issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) under the Trails Act to allow conversion to a recreational trail. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, arguing that their source conveyances granted only easements to the railroad, that trail use exceeded those easements, that they regained fee ownership upon abandonment, and that the NITU effected a taking; the government cross-moved, contesting ownership, causation, and the effect of a pre-existing trail. The court determined that the conveyances included a mix of easements and fee simple interests, that recreational trail use exceeded the scope of any easements, and that the pre-existing trail did not affect causation but could reduce just compensation. It therefore granted partial summary judgment to both sides on some issues while denying it on others, leaving multiple claims for further resolution including the amount of compensation owed.

propertyfederal power

This case involves a military pay dispute brought by Howard Young, who was discharged from the U.S. Army in 1980 after a misdemeanor conviction and now seeks back pay, compensation, and VA-administered benefits dating to 1981. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the claims for VA benefits, holding that its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is limited to monetary claims for pay and does not extend to benefits administered by other agencies. The remaining compensation claims will proceed on an administrative record rather than through summary judgment, consistent with the standard framework for reviewing military pay determinations under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The court established a briefing schedule for cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record and denied the plaintiff's pending summary judgment motion.

federal powerprocedure