Lagergren v. United States, 655 F. App'x 837

Lagergren, a seaman discharged from NOAA vessel Rainier, received wages owed but sued for statutory "double pay" penalty under 46 U.S.C. § 10504(c)(1) for delayed payment.
He did not assert any contractual claim; sought statutory penalty money from the United States.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding no waiver of sovereign immunity for the penalty and rejecting a Takings Clause claim.
Lagergren appealed to the Federal Circuit challenging the dismissal and raising additional constitutional arguments (Admiralty Clause, due process, equal protection, takings).
The Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and considered whether § 10504(c)(1) is money-mandating and whether Congress waived immunity for penalties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 10504(c)(1) (double-pay penalty) waives sovereign immunity so Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction	§10504(c)(1) mandates payment of double wages for delay; Lagergren entitled to recover penalty from government	Government immune absent explicit congressional waiver for statutory penalties; Tucker Act does not waive immunity for punitive penalties	No waiver; dismissal affirmed — penalty provision is not enforceable against the U.S. under Tucker Act
Nature of §10504(c)(1): compensatory vs punitive	Provision compensates seamen for delay and thus is money-mandating	Provision is primarily punitive/deterrent and therefore not a money-mandating waiver	Provision treated as partly punitive; not money-mandating for waiver purposes
Applicability of Admiralty Clause to create jurisdiction	Admiralty jurisdiction should support claim against the government	Admiralty Clause extends judicial power but does not waive sovereign immunity or create Tucker Act jurisdiction	Admiralty Clause does not supply waiver or jurisdiction for statutory penalty claims against the U.S.
Due process / Equal protection / Takings as alternative bases for jurisdiction	Constitutional protections entitle Lagergren to recovery or property interest	These clauses do not themselves mandate payment; statutory right to money is not a property interest for Takings	Constitutional arguments do not provide money-mandating source or property interest; no jurisdiction

Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (statutory waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Tucker Act requires source of law that fairly mandates compensation)
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Ault, 256 U.S. 554 (Congress did not intend to authorize suit against U.S. for penalties absent explicit waiver)
McCrea v. United States (The American Shipper), 70 F.2d 632 (penalty under Seamen’s Act not waiving government immunity)
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (predecessor statute served partly punitive/deterrent purpose)