Court Opinion

ID: 9886563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 16:17:41.782642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:27.336769
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Newman.
Prost, Chief Judge.
For the reasons stated in our decision in the companion case, Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States , No. 17-1994, the statutory and contract claims of appellant Land of Lincoln Mutual Health fail. Additionally, *1186because Land of Lincoln cannot state a contract claim, its takings claim fails to the extent it relies on the existence of a contract.
What remains is Land of Lincoln's takings claim to the extent that claim arises from its statutory entitlement to full payments. We have previously held that "no statutory obligation to pay money, even where unchallenged, can create a property interest within the meaning of the Takings Clause." Adams v. United States , 391 F.3d 1212, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States , 271 F.3d 1327, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (en banc) ). Land of Lincoln offers no basis for departing from that rule, and we see none. Accordingly, Land of Lincoln's takings claim fails.
Because we hold that the trial court correctly granted judgment for the government as a matter of law, we need not address whether the trial court properly reached that conclusion via judgment on the administrative record.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
The parties shall bear their own costs.