John Doe 1 v. United States, 37 F.4th 84

During the 2018 federal shutdown FBI employees missed timely Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions; the market rose before late payments were made, so late contributions bought fewer shares.
FERSA requires agencies to contribute set percentages of salary to TSP "for the benefit of" employees and to make contributions no later than 12 days after the pay period ends (5 U.S.C. § 8432(c)).
Employees sued under 5 U.S.C. § 8477(e)(3)(C)(i) to recover the investment gains they lost due to the government’s delayed contributions.
The government conceded § 8477(e)(3) waives sovereign immunity for suits to "recover benefits" but argued that lost investment earnings from late payments are not statutory "benefits" within that waiver.
The District Court denied dismissal and the issue was certified for interlocutory appeal; the Third Circuit reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
The Third Circuit reversed, holding the statute does not waive sovereign immunity for employees’ lost investment gains from late TSP contributions and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 8477(e)(3)’s waiver permits recovery of lost investment gains from late TSP contributions	Employees: § 8477(e)(3) lets participants “recover benefits,” which includes the value they would have gained if contributions were timely	Gov't: “Benefits” means the contribution amount itself, not consequential investment gains; waiver does not cover those damages	No — lost earnings from late contributions are not recoverable “benefits” under § 8477(e)(3)
Whether the statutory remedial scheme (§ 8432a and regulations) allows recovery when delay stems from events beyond agency control	Employees: remedial scheme supports recovering lost earnings from errors or omissions	Gov't: § 8432a and implementing regulation exclude losses caused by events beyond agency control (e.g., a shutdown)	Scheme and regulation show Congress did not authorize recovery for losses caused by events beyond agency control
Appropriate interpretive standard for waivers of sovereign immunity	Employees: ambiguity should be resolved in their favor; cite Tucker Act’s "fair interpretation" standard	Gov't: waivers must be unmistakably plain; apply the clear-statement rule for money damages absent a definitive waiver	Apply the clear-statement rule; ambiguous waivers construed narrowly in favor of immunity

Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (distinguishes cause of action from waiver of sovereign immunity)
Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (Congress must waive sovereign immunity to permit suits for money damages)
FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012) (clear-statement rule for waivers of immunity; construe ambiguities in favor of the Government)
Babcock v. Kijakazi, 142 S. Ct. 641 (2022) (statutory context governs interpretation of remedial schemes)
United States v. White Mt. Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (2003) (Tucker Act fair-interpretation standard discussed)
Me. Cmty. Health Options v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1308 (2020) (when a statute provides its own remedy, Tucker Act fair-interpretation test does not control)
United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012) (limits on invoking Tucker Act when a statute supplies its own remedial path)
United States v. Hodge, 948 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2020) (standard of review for statutory interpretation noted)