Straw v. United States
710 F. App'x 881
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Andrew U.D. Straw sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging he (via in utero exposure) and family members were harmed by toxic chemicals tied to his father’s service at Naval Air Station Jacksonville.
- Straw’s original complaint sought damages invoking the Fifth and Ninth Amendments and cited Bivens; the Claims Court dismissed sua sponte for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction, treating the claims as torts not takings.
- Straw moved for leave to amend, recharacterizing his injury as a Fifth Amendment taking (loss of bodily integrity as property) and asserting an implied contract between the government and his father to protect and warn service members and dependents.
- The Claims Court denied leave to amend, holding Straw failed to plead a compensable taking and that any contractual duty alleged was an implied-in-law obligation (not within Tucker Act jurisdiction).
- Straw appealed; the Federal Circuit reviewed legal dismissal de novo and denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Straw's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged bodily harm from government exposure can be a Fifth Amendment taking | Straw: bodily integrity is a property interest; government deprivation is a compensable taking | US: injury allegations are torts, not takings; no recognized property interest in freedom from bodily harm | Held: No. Courts do not recognize bodily harm as a Fifth Amendment property taking; claim is tortious and noncompensable under Tucker Act |
| Whether a contractual claim exists based on duties to protect/warn service members and dependents | Straw: military actions/representations created an implied-in-fact contract | US: any duty arises from statute or law and would be an implied-in-law obligation, not an implied-in-fact contract | Held: No plausible facts plead an implied-in-fact contract; claims allege duties implied-in-law excluded from Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Pleading sufficiency under Iqbal for an implied-in-fact contract | Straw: asserted statutory duties and representations suffice to infer an agreement | US: pleadings lack facts showing a meeting of minds or tacit mutual assent | Held: Straw failed to plead factual matter to state a plausible implied-in-fact contractual claim |
| Denial of leave to amend — abuse of discretion? | Straw: should be allowed to amend to cure defects | US: amendment would not cure jurisdictional/pleading defects | Held: No abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend given futility of proposed amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing an implied private action for constitutional torts)
- Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (Fifth Amendment requires just compensation for takings of personal and real property)
- Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (historical precedent on status as property; noted as superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment)
- Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (Tucker Act covers contracts implied-in-fact but not contracts implied-in-law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly support claims)