N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.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

______________________

J USTIN P AUL D REILING , Lumber Bridge, NC, pro se.

E LIZABETH A NNE S PECK , Commercial LitigationBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON , P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY , D OUGLAS K. M ICKLE ; S ETH I. H ELLER , Office of the Chief Counsel, U nited States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

______________________ Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/20232 DREILING v. US

Before M OORE , Chief Judge

, P ROST and H UGHES , Circuit Judges

. M OORE , 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 di sclose information about the COVID

- 19 vaccines. For the following reasons,

we affirm

. B ACKGROUND
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 informat ion on the COVID

- 19 vaccines. Appx. 5

– 7. SSG Dreiling alleged he could not make a well

- informed decision about whether to be vaccinated w ithout the information and thus remained unvaccinated pending his requests for more complete disclosures

. Id. He fu rther alleged t his put him at risk of involuntary separation and caused him irreparable harm. Id. SSG Dreiling requested t he 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 matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Appx. 9

– 17. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdic tion be cause 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).

D ISCUSSION

The Court of Federal Claims ’ jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is limited to cases involving a mo ney

- mandating statute or agency regulation

. S ee 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, 117 2 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We review decisions to dismiss a Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2023DREILING 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 cla ims. SSG Dreiling argues the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over equitable 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 jurisdictional statute.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the Court of Federal Claims ’ juris diction 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 claimsbut only that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce the relief of equitable claims. This argument is unavailing. Jones expressly addressed whether the jurisdictional statute “authoriz e[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. I t answered that question in the negative. Id. at 18

– 20. Lest there was any doubt, t he Supreme Court ’s subsequent case law has made clear that the Court of Federal Claims ’ jurisdiction has always “beenlimited to money claims against the United States Government” and does not include claims for equitable relie f

. 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: 3 Filed: 03/16/20234 DREILING v. US

lacked jurisdiction to hear SSG Dreiling’s claim. We affirm

. AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 03/16/2023