Julian v. United States, 658 F. App'x 1014

Christopher and Renee Julian sued in the Western District of Virginia under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) (RICO) and related tort/due-process theories after USDA denied a farm loan; the district court dismissed most claims and granted summary judgment for USDA on the loan denial. The Fourth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
The Julians then sued in the Court of Federal Claims for $42 million, alleging the government breached an implied contract by permitting private RICO suits (which they characterized as an "offer") and that dismissal of their RICO claim constituted a Fifth Amendment taking of that implied contract.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to recuse the assigned judge.
The Julians sought mandamus; the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit converted the petition into a notice of appeal and heard the case under its appellate jurisdiction.
The Federal Circuit affirmed: it held the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to review a district court’s dismissal; § 1964(c) is not money‑mandating for the Court of Federal Claims; no contract was formed by RICO’s private-right provision; alleged frustration of a legal claim is not a compensable taking; and the recusal denial was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CFC had jurisdiction to review the district court’s dismissal	Julian: CFC can review because dismissal breached an implied contract/created a taking arising from the RICO private‑right	U.S.: CFC lacks jurisdiction to review district court decisions; RICO is not money‑mandating for CFC jurisdiction	CFC lacks jurisdiction to review district court dismissals; §1964(c) is not money‑mandating for the CFC
Whether §1964(c) created an implied contract between government and private plaintiffs	Julian: RICO’s private‑suit provision is an "offer" creating an implied contract when plaintiffs filed suit	U.S.: Statutes are not contracts absent clear legislative intent to create contractual obligations	No contract existed; statutory private‑remedy does not create a contract offer
Whether dismissal of the RICO claim was a Fifth Amendment taking of plaintiffs’ property	Julian: The RICO claim was a property right; its dismissal was a taking	U.S.: Frustration/loss of a legal claim is not a compensable taking	Denied — frustration/loss of a legal claim is not a compensable taking
Whether the assigned judge abused discretion by refusing recusal request	Julian: Judge should have recused because he would not attest he took his statutory oath	U.S.: No requirement that a judge prove oath-taking to a party; denial not abuse	No abuse of discretion in denying recusal

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley‑Duff & Assoc., Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987) (recognizing §1964(c) creates a private right to sue under RICO)
Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451 (1985) (statutes are not presumed to create contractual or vested rights absent clear legislative intent)
Dodge v. Bd. of Ed., 302 U.S. 74 (1937) (similar presumption against statutes creating private contractual rights)
Belk v. United States, 858 F.2d 706 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (frustration of a legal claim is not a compensable taking)
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (CFC lacks jurisdiction to review district court proceedings)
Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (review of a judge’s refusal to recuse is for abuse of discretion)