United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TONY LAMONTE GREENE, BILLIE WAYNE BYRD,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

ANTHONY MICHAEL JACKSON, WILLIAM 

GEORGE COODEY, II, GARRY WAYNE WILSON, 

LARRY DOAK, ROBERT LEE SMALLEN, CHAVIS 

LENARD DAY, DANIEL CODY WATKINS,

Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1898, 2023-1954 

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in Nos. 1:22-cv-01064-KCD, 1:22-cv-01185-KCD, 

Judge Kathryn C. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: April 29, 2024

______________________ 

TONY LAMONTE GREENE, Helena, OK, pro se.

 BILLIE WAYNE BYRD, Helena, OK, pro se.

 RAFIQUE OMAR ANDERSON, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 04/29/2024
2 GREENE v. US

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, BRYSON, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. 

The appellants, Tony Lamonte Greene and Billie 

Wayne Byrd, are incarcerated in a state prison in Oklahoma. They and their seven co-plaintiffs filed actions in 

the Court of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) contending that their imprisonment is unlawful and seeking relief 

in the form of monetary compensation from the United 

States. The Claims Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ actions 

for lack of jurisdiction, and the two appellants brought this 

appeal. We affirm. 

I 

The plaintiffs allege that they are members of the 

Cherokee Nation and that under certain treaties between 

the Cherokee Nation and the United States, the State of 

Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute and incarcerate 

them. As a remedy, they each seek $100 per day for unauthorized detention and more than $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. 

The appellants base their lawsuits on the Supreme 

Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 

(2020). In McGirt, the Court held that Oklahoma state 

courts lack jurisdiction over Indians who commit crimes in 

areas designated as “Indian Country.” For that reason, the

appellants contend, their convictions are invalid. They 

each assert that the federal government is liable for the injuries they have suffered and should be required to compensate them through monetary awards.

As the basis for their theory that the federal government is liable for their unlawful incarcerations, the

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 04/29/2024
GREENE v. US 3

appellants’ complaints relied on certain provisions of two 

nineteenth century treaties between the United States and 

the Cherokee Nation: article 5 of the Treaty with the Cherokees, 7 Stat. 478, 481 (Dec. 29, 1835), and articles 26 and 

27 of the Treaty with the Cherokee Indians, 14 Stat. 799, 

806 (July 19, 1866). Article 5 of the 1835 treaty provides 

that the Cherokee Nation shall have the right to enact laws 

for the protection of its people. 7 Stat. at 481. Articles 26 

and 27 of the 1866 treaty provide that the United States 

shall remove citizens who unlawfully settle on Cherokee 

land. 14 Stat. at 806. 

In their response to the government’s motion to dismiss 

in the Claims Court, the appellants added references to article 3 of the 1835 treaty and article 13 of the 1866 treaty. 

Article 3 of the 1835 treaty secures, for the United States, 

the right to use Cherokee natural resources so long as individuals are compensated for any losses. 7 Stat. at 480–

81. Article 13 of the 1866 treaty provides that Cherokee 

tribunals shall retain jurisdiction over cases arising within 

Cherokee territory. 14 Stat. at 803. 

The Claims Court dismissed the appellants’ complaints. It held that it lacked jurisdiction over their claims

because the appellants failed to show that the treaties on 

which they relied gave rise to a personal right to monetary 

relief on their part in the event of a breach of the covenants 

relating to the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction 

within the Cherokee Nation. 

The court explained that claims based on treaties with 

Indian nations, unlike treaties with foreign nations, can 

fall within the jurisdiction of the Claims Court because 

they are treated as “a species of contract.” Tsosie v. United 

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 04/29/2024
4 GREENE v. US

States, 825 F.2d 393, 401 (Fed. Cir. 1987).1 While a breach 

of contract claim against the United States can generally 

be bought in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), that principle does not apply 

when the contract is not of a type that normally involves 

purely monetary relief. In that setting, the court held, the 

plaintiff must demonstrate that the contract contains provisions that can reasonably be inferred to mandate compensation by the United States. App. 23 (citing Holmes v. 

United States, 657 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). 

The Claims Court then examined the treaties on which 

the appellants relied and concluded that, with respect to 

the provisions dealing with the scope of civil and criminal 

jurisdiction, the treaties were not money-mandating. App.

27–29. The court observed that none of the treaty provisions on which the appellants relied “impose[d] any specific 

fiduciary or other duties on the United States,” nor did they 

“contain language that contemplates an award of money 

damages for the breach of any such duties.” App. 29. With 

respect to the portion of the 1835 treaty providing for the 

payment of “just compensation” by the United States, the 

court observed that the provision relied on by the appellants applied only when the United States is exercising its 

right to make and establish posts and roads in Cherokee 

country. App. 30.

From the Claims Court’s dismissal order, the appellants took this appeal.2

1 Claims arising under treaties with foreign nations 

are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Claims 

Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1502. 

2 In the aftermath of the McGirt decision, the Claims 

Court has addressed several other claims from Oklahoma 

state inmates similar to the appellants’ and has resolved 

them all consistently with the court’s ruling in this case. 

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 04/29/2024
GREENE v. US 5

II

The Claims Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. The 

jurisdictional statute that applies to this case is the Tucker 

Act, which grants the Claims Court jurisdiction over claims 

against the United States “founded either upon the Constitution, or an Act of Congress or regulation of an executive 

department, or upon any express or implied contract with 

the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). 

As the Claims Court observed, for the court to have jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, the plaintiff must be able to 

point to a “money-mandating” statute or other provision 

that requires the federal government to compensate the 

plaintiff for an injury other than one sounding in tort. See 

United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 US. 287, 290 (2009) 

(To establish jurisdiction, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government” (quoting 

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976))).

Referring to the 1835 and 1866 treaties with the Cherokee tribes, the appellants argue that the treaties’ provisions can fairly be interpreted as “money-mandating.” 

Appellants’ Br. 2 (incorporating App. 4–5 by reference). In 

effect, the appellants contend that the treaty language on 

which they rely constitutes a promise by the United States 

that persons in their position would not be subject to state 

prosecution, and that in the event of a breach of that 

See Scott v. United States, No. 22-1603C, 2023 WL 3455725 

(Ct. Fed. Cl. May 15, 2023); Cramer v. United States, No. 

23-37C, 2023 WL 3072541 (Ct. Fed. Cl. Apr. 25, 2023); Williamson v. United States, No. 23-263C, 2023 WL 3032952 

(Ct. Fed. Cl. Apr. 20, 2023); Moore v. United States, 163 

Fed. Cl. 591 (2022).

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 5 Filed: 04/29/2024
6 GREENE v. US

promise, the federal government would be required to compensate the affected individuals for the resulting injury.

That theory is unpersuasive. The Claims Court can assert jurisdiction over claims grounded in treaties between 

the United States and Indian nations, which are regarded 

as “essentially a contract between two sovereign nations.” 

Washington v. Wash. State Com. Passenger Fishing Vessel 

Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 675 (1979); Tsosie, 825 F.2d at 401 (a 

treaty between the United States and Indian nations is “a 

species of contract”). Because breach of contract claims 

generally carry “a presumption that money damages are 

available,” such claims normally fall within the reach of the 

Tucker Act. Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303, 1314 

(Fed. Cir. 2014). But “[t]he government’s consent to suit 

under the Tucker Act does not extend to every contract.” 

Id. The contract “must be between the plaintiff and the 

government and entitle the plaintiff to money damages in 

the event of the government’s breach of that contract.” 

Ransom v. United States, 900 F.2d 242, 244 (Fed. Cir. 

1990).

Those requirements are not satisfied here, for several 

reasons. First, the treaty provisions the appellants rely 

upon are not money-mandating. In their brief, appellants 

cite article 5 of the 1835 treaty and articles 26 and 27 of the 

1866 treaty. In article 5 of the 1835 treaty, the United 

States promised that 

the lands ceded to the Cherokee Nation shall, in no 

future time, without their consent, be included, 

within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any 

State or Territory. But they shall secure to the 

Cherokee Nation the right by their national councils to make and carry into effect all such laws as 

they may deem necessary for the government and 

protection of the persons and property within their 

own country belonging to their people or such person as have connected themselves with them.

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 6 Filed: 04/29/2024
GREENE v. US 7

7 Stat. at 481. Articles 26 and 27 of the 1866 treaty provide 

that the United States shall protect the people of the Cherokee Nation from “all unauthorized citizens of the United 

States who may attempt to settle on their lands or reside 

in their territory,” and that it would be “the duty of the 

United States Indian agent for the Cherokees to have such 

persons, not lawfully residing or sojourning therein, removed from the nation.” 14 Stat. at 806. Neither provision 

contemplates a monetary remedy should it be breached. 

The two other treaty provisions that appellants cited in 

their complaints likewise do not provide for money damages in the event of breach. Article 3 of the 1835 treaty 

provides that the United States shall always have “the 

right to make and establish roads and forts and the free 

use of as much land, timber, fuel and materials of all kinds 

for the construction and support of the same as may be necessary; provided that if the private rights of individuals are 

interfered with, a just compensation therefor shall be 

made.” 7 Stat. at 480–81. While that provision is moneymandating, it applies only to the payment of just compensation for private property taken from individuals. 

Article 13 of the 1866 treaty provides as follows:

The Cherokees also agree that a court or courts 

may be established by the United States in said territory, with such jurisdiction and organized in such 

manner as may be prescribed by law: Provided, 

that the judicial tribunals of the nation shall be allowed to retain exclusive jurisdiction in all civil and 

criminal cases arising within their country in 

which members of the nation, by nativity or adoption, shall be the only parties, or where the cause 

of action shall arise in the Cherokee nation, except 

as otherwise provided in this treaty.

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 7 Filed: 04/29/2024
8 GREENE v. US

14 Stat. at 803. That provision does not create a right to 

money damages for an individual asserting that his prosecution violates that provision of the treaty.3 

Even when viewed in light of the principle that ambiguity or silence in agreements between the United States 

and a Native American tribe must be read to the tribe’s 

benefit, Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 423–24 (1994), the 

treaty provisions on which the appellants rely cannot be 

said to be money-mandating. The cited portions of the two 

treaties with the Cherokees guarantee the right of self-government to the Cherokee Nation. But those passages do 

not provide for monetary compensation for a breach of the 

promises made by the United States. As such, the asserted 

breach of those provisions does not give rise to jurisdiction 

under the Tucker Act. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. at 290.

Second, to the extent the treaty provisions at issue are 

deemed contractual in nature, they reflect agreements between the United States and the tribes. The agreements 

addressed the respective rights of sovereignty of the two 

contracting parties; they did not create contract-based 

rights in individuals, the breach of which could give rise to 

monetary remedies for those individual complainants. A 

treaty between the United States and an Indian Tribe “cannot provide a basis for the Tucker Act’s contract-based 

3 An example of a treaty provision that was held to 

give rise to an individual’s claim for money damages is 

found in the “bad men” provision of the 1868 treaties with 

various tribes, including the Navajo Nation. That provision, which was held to be money-mandating in Tsosie, 825 

F.2d at 401, stated that “[i]f bad men among the white, or 

among other people subject to the authority of the United 

States, shall commit any wrong upon the person or property of the Indians, the United States will . . . reimburse 

the injured persons for the loss sustained.” Navajo Treaty 

of June 1, 1868, 15 Stat. 667–68.

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 8 Filed: 04/29/2024
GREENE v. US 9

jurisdiction” where the plaintiff “has not alleged that he 

was a party to the alleged contract or in privity with a party 

that was.” Landreth v. United States, 797 F. App’x 521, 

524 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

The appellants have not identified any legal obligation 

owed by the United States to persons over whom Oklahoma 

has improperly exercised criminal jurisdiction. Their incarceration is the result of state prosecution, not the product of any action by the federal government. Their theory 

is that the United States had an obligation to protect them 

from state law. Not having done so, they argue, the federal 

government must remedy the illegal detention to which 

they and others similarly situated are subject, and to do so 

by the payment of money damages. 

Nothing in the treaties on which the appellants rely

suggests that the federal government agreed to be held liable for damages in the event that a state sought to exercise criminal jurisdiction within Indian territories. See 

Arizona v. Navajo Nation, 599 U.S. 555, 564 (2023) (holding that a treaty which “set apart a reservation for the use 

and occupation of the Navajo tribe” did not impose a “duty 

on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the tribe”). In particular, there is nothing in the 

treaties to indicate that, if a state enacted legislation governing conduct in Indian territory, the federal government 

would be required to pay damages to individuals claiming 

injury from that action. 

Third, the claim at issue in this case arises in the context of a criminal proceeding. As this court has noted, 

“breach of contract arising out of the criminal justice system does not ordinarily give rise to an action under the 

Tucker Act for damages.” Sanders v. United States, 252 

F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding no jurisdiction 

over a claim seeking money damages for an alleged breach 

by a federal prosecutor of a stipulated agreement not to object to the plaintiff’s continued release on bail); Podlucky v. 

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 9 Filed: 04/29/2024
10 GREENE v. US

United States, No. 2021-2226, 2022 WL 1791065, at *2 

(Fed. Cir. June 2, 2022). As this court explained in Sanders, “enforcing and policing the criminal law is assigned to 

the courts of general jurisdiction and not” the Claims 

Court. 252 F.3d at 1335. 

The Sanders line of cases is a specific application of the 

general principle that “Tucker Act jurisdiction may . . . be 

lacking if relief for breach of contract could be entirely nonmonetary.” Higbie v. United States, 778 F.3d 990, 993 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015). While the treaties at issue in this case can be 

regarded as contractual in nature, they are contracts in 

which any remedies for breach would be non-monetary in 

nature and would not be the form of remedy that the 

Claims Court is authorized to grant.4 

Because the appellants’ claim does not fall within the 

reach of the Tucker Act, we agree with the Claims Court 

that it lacked jurisdiction to address their demand for damages from the United States attributable to their prosecution and incarceration by the State of Oklahoma.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

4 An exception to that principle is found in 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2513(a)(1) and 1495, which respectively create a cause 

of action for money damages against the United States for 

“unjust conviction and wrongful imprisonment” under certain circumstances and confer jurisdiction on the Court of 

Federal Claims “for damages by any person unjustly convicted of an offense against the United States and imprisoned.” That statute does not apply to state prisoners such 

as Mr. Greene and Mr. Byrd. 

Case: 23-1898 Document: 28 Page: 10 Filed: 04/29/2024