HANSEN v. United States
1:24-cv-00091
Fed. Cl.Jan 26, 2024Background
- Pro se plaintiff Helaman Hansen filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking over $56 billion in damages and correction of alleged government actions for future generations.
- Hansen alleged that the U.S. government used unconstitutional information, broke international promises (especially to the South Pacific), and violated his constitutional rights.
- Hansen also argued that government actions undermine the United Nations’ mission, particularly regarding human rights and family protections under the UDHR.
- The complaint included a letter to the United Nations seeking human rights redress for future generations.
- The Court reviewed the complaint to determine if it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and related law.
- The Court ultimately dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3), but granted Hansen’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (Tucker Act) | Claims based on constitutional and international law | Outside court’s jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction, case dismissed |
| Claims under UDHR / UN issues | US violated international and UN obligations | Not enforceable in this court | Court lacks jurisdiction |
| Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment claims | US violated due process and equal protection | Not money-mandating provisions | Not cognizable, court lacks jurisdiction |
| Claims against non-federal entities | Seeks redress against US and UN for rights issues | Only US is proper defendant | Claims against UN dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (Court must determine subject-matter jurisdiction as a threshold issue)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (Pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards, but must meet jurisdictional rules)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (The United States is the only proper defendant in the Court of Federal Claims)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are not money-mandating, so Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction)