Upshur v. United States
702 F. App'x 983
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2016 Upshur, Thompson, and Sheppard sued in the Court of Federal Claims challenging governmental authority and asserting violations of the Constitution, federal law, and a treaty; they sought about $4.6 trillion in damages.
- Plaintiffs invoked various jurisdictional statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 1333, 1337, 2461, 2463) and advanced theories based on Title Deeds, the "Laws of Universal Life/Heavenly Laws," and the Ninth Amendment.
- The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, explaining the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491) — not §§ 1333/1337 — governs claims for money damages against the United States.
- The court held plaintiffs had not identified a money‑mandating source of law that would allow recovery from the United States; other named defendants were not proper defendants in the Claims Court.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the Federal Circuit reviewed jurisdictional dismissal de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction based on statutes plaintiffs invoked (28 U.S.C. §§ 1333, 1337, 2461, 2463) | Upshur argued those statutes (and others) supplied jurisdiction for their monetary claims | U.S. argued §§ 1333 and 1337 confer jurisdiction only on district courts, not Claims Court, and no money‑mandating source was pleaded | Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction under those statutes; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the Tucker Act provides jurisdiction | Plaintiffs implicitly relied on Tucker Act jurisdiction by suing for money damages | U.S. argued plaintiffs failed to identify a separate, money‑mandating source of law required by the Tucker Act | Plaintiffs did not identify a substantive source that fairly mandates money damages against the U.S.; Tucker Act jurisdiction not established |
| Whether Title Deeds or a Takings claim supported jurisdiction | Plaintiffs pointed to Title Deeds as the basis for relief | U.S. said plaintiffs made no coherent argument tying deeds to a money‑mandating source or a takings theory | Court found no understandable takings claim or statutory/constitutional source mandating compensation |
| Whether nontraditional sources ("Heavenly Laws"/Biblical law, Ninth Amendment) are money‑mandating | Plaintiffs asserted "Laws of Universal Life/Heavenly Laws" and the Ninth Amendment support their claims | U.S. contended these do not waive sovereign immunity or constitute money‑mandating sources | Court rejected those as money‑mandating (and noted plaintiffs waived some contentions by not raising them below); Ninth Amendment not a money‑mandating source |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not itself create a substantive money‑mandating right)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (a claim under the Tucker Act requires a separate source of substantive law that mandates compensation)
- Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. United States, 569 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Fifth Amendment Takings Clause can be money‑mandating)
- Hernandez v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 193 (2010) (discussing takings and Claims Court jurisdiction)
- Conner v. United States, [citation="641 F. App'x 972"] (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting Ninth Amendment as money‑mandating)
- Barksdale v. United States, [citation="582 F. App'x 890"] (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same)