NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,

DOUGLAS K. MICKLE; SETH I. HELLER, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 1 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 information on the COVID-19 vaccines. Appx. 5–7. SSG Dreiling 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 irreparable 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 matter 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-mandating 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: 2 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 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’ 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 equitable claims. This argument is unavailing. Jones expressly 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 Government” 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: 3 Filed: 03/16/2023
4 DREILING v. US

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

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 22-2292 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 03/16/2023