Velarde v. United States, 17-541

Pro se plaintiff Bart N. Velarde, a U.S. citizen in Michigan, sued seeking $1M compensatory and $10M punitive damages for alleged U.S. misconduct in the Philippines (Spanish–American/Philippine conflicts) including murder, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Complaint alleges U.S. forces caused ~2.5 million Filipino deaths (1899 to present) and that the U.S. has covered up violations via a neocolonial policy.
Velarde named President Donald J. Trump as the sole defendant and invoked Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution and other theories.
The Government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Court considered Tucker Act jurisdictional principles requiring a money-mandating, separate source of law and concluded Velarde failed to identify any such source and did not sue the United States.
Court granted the Government's motion and ordered judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction; no costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court has jurisdiction over claims naming the President	Velarde asserted constitutional violations and sought monetary damages against President Trump	Government argued Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction only over claims against the United States, not against the President	Dismissed: Court lacks jurisdiction because the President, not the United States, was named
Whether a money-mandating source of law exists under the Tucker Act	Velarde invoked Article II §4 and "modern politics" doctrines as bases for money damages	Government argued Velarde identified no separate, money‑mandating statutory or constitutional source to create a claim for damages	Dismissed: Article II §4 does not provide monetary remedies and no valid separate source was alleged

RHI Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 142 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Tucker Act does not create a cause of action)
Greenlee County v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (must identify separate source of substantive law for money damages)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same requirement under Tucker Act)
Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are liberally construed)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standard)
United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction is limited to suits against the United States)
Outlaw v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 656 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (failure to establish Tucker Act jurisdiction requires dismissal)
Moore v. Public Defenders Office, 76 Fed. Cl. 617 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (Court lacks jurisdiction when complaint names non-federal entities)