98 Fed. Cl. 393
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Madison and Scott are co-owners of a 69-acre tract in Hartsville, SC, with additional co-owners;
- They filed a complaint alleging forgery, false statements, and failure to cooperate, partly based on a FOIA report;
- The Amended Complaint asserts First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, plus FOIA and Privacy Act violations, related to an alleged USDA contract with property owners;
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6);
- The subsidy program (Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program) permits cash-rent or share-rent arrangements, and plaintiffs allege signature forgery on CCC-509 forms;
- The court concludes it lacks jurisdiction over the claims and that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief; there is no contract directly with plaintiffs and the asserted takings/constitutional claims are not money-mandating; the Tucker Act does not confer jurisdiction over the non-US-employee claims or non-money damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over the Fifth Amendment takings claim | Madison/Scott contend government action constitutes a taking and money damages. | Government argues no compensation-taking claim against the US; no direct taking of property or monetary benefits exists. | No jurisdiction; claim is not money-mandating and not a valid Fifth Amendment taking. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over First and Fourteenth Amendment claims | Amendments allegedly violated by government actions/FOIA disclosures. | Claims do not involve money-mandating duties; government actions not subject to Tucker Act relief. | Lack of jurisdiction; claims dismissed. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over FOIA/Privacy Act and related statutory claims | FOIA and Privacy Act violations occurred due to government disclosure activities. | Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over these statutory claims. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether plaintiffs state a breach of contract claim under Tucker Act | Plaintiffs never signed authorization forms; contract existence unclear. | To trigger Tucker Act must show a contract with the United States; here required signatures are disputed. | No jurisdiction for contract claim; no enforceable contract established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction for takings claims under Fifth Amendment established for money-mandating actions)
- Huntleigh USA Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (takings include regulatory burdens on private property interests)
- Meyers v. United States, 96 Fed.Cl. 34 (2010) (no property rights in monetary benefits under government subsidy program)
- Allied Home Mortg. Capital Corp. v. United States, 95 Fed.Cl. 769 (2010) (tucker act jurisdiction; limits on actions against individuals vs. United States)
- United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882 (4th Cir. 1983) (First Amendment claims not money-mandating; no money damages")