Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JUSTIN PAUL DREILING,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2292
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00223-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
Decided: March 16, 2023
______________________
JUSTIN PAUL DREILING, Lumber Bridge, NC, pro se.
ELIZABETH ANNE SPECK, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,
DOUGLAS K. MICKLE; SETH I. HELLER, Office of the Chief
Counsel, United States Food and Drug Administration, Sil-
ver Spring, MD.
______________________
Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2023
2 DREILING v. US
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and HUGHES, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
Staff Sergeant Justin Paul Dreiling appeals a decision
of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing for
lack of jurisdiction his claim for an injunction directing the
Food and Drug Administration to disclose information
about the COVID-19 vaccines. For the following reasons,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
SSG Dreiling filed a claim in the Court of Federal
Claims alleging the FDA was violating
21 C.F.R.
§ 601.51(e) by not releasing accurate and complete infor-
mation on the COVID-19 vaccines. Appx. 5–7. SSG Dreil-
ing alleged he could not make a well-informed decision
about whether to be vaccinated without the information
and thus remained unvaccinated pending his requests for
more complete disclosures.
Id. He further alleged this put
him at risk of involuntary separation and caused him ir-
reparable harm.
Id. SSG Dreiling requested the Court of
Federal Claims grant him injunctive relief by ordering the
FDA to immediately release the required data. Appx. 8.
The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject mat-
ter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Appx. 9–17.
The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction because
21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) is not
money mandating. Appx. 2–3. SSG Dreiling appeals. We
have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
The Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction under the
Tucker Act is limited to cases involving a money-mandat-
ing statute or agency regulation. See
28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1); United States v. King,
395 U.S. 1, 2–3 (1969);
Fisher v. United States,
402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc). We review decisions to dismiss a
Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 03/16/2023
DREILING v. US 3
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.
Boaz Hous. Auth. v. United States,
994 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2021).
SSG Dreiling does not allege
21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) is
money mandating but argues the Court of Federal Claims’
jurisdiction is not limited to monetary claims. SSG Dreil-
ing argues the plain language of
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)
gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over equita-
ble claims in addition to monetary claims. This argument
is based on SSG Dreiling’s belief that the Supreme Court
has, for nearly a century and a half, misunderstood its own
precedent in United States v. Jones,
131 U.S. 1 (1889) and
wrongly interpreted the Court of Federal Claims jurisdic-
tional statute.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the Court of
Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to monetary claims
against the government. See, e.g., Jones,
131 U.S. at 19;
King,
395 U.S. at 2–3; United States v. Testan,
424 U.S.
392, 400–02 (1976); United States v. Mitchell,
463 U.S. 206,
216–17 (1983). SSG Dreiling argues that Jones does not
hold that the court lacks jurisdiction over equitable claims
but only that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the relief of eq-
uitable claims. This argument is unavailing. Jones ex-
pressly addressed whether the jurisdictional statute
“authorize[d] suits of the kind like the present, which are
brought, not for the recovery of money, but for equitable
relief.” Jones,
131 U.S. at 14. It answered that question in
the negative.
Id. at 18–20. Lest there was any doubt, the
Supreme Court’s subsequent case law has made clear that
the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction has always “been
limited to money claims against the United States Govern-
ment” and does not include claims for equitable relief.
King,
395 U.S. at 2–3.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation is binding. The
Court of Federal Claims therefore did not err in holding it
Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 03/16/2023
4 DREILING v. US
lacked jurisdiction to hear SSG Dreiling’s claim. We af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
