Background
Tongsun Kim and Gwanjun Kim sued over the handling of their unemployment benefits and workers’ disability compensation claims. They asserted tort claims against the State of Michigan, state officials, and state entities.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction and denied the Kims’ motion for reconsideration. The Kims appealed, moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and submitted their opening brief.
The Court’s Holding
In a nonprecedential per curiam order, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed because no substantial question existed about the appeal’s outcome. The court explained that the Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction only over claims for money damages that do not sound in tort and that are brought against the United States.
The Kims’ tort claims against Michigan, its officials, and its entities were clearly outside that limited jurisdiction. The court therefore affirmed the jurisdictional dismissal, denied the motions to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and directed each side to bear its own costs.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Federal Claims lacks Tucker Act jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort.
- Its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is limited to qualifying money-damages claims against the United States, not claims against a state, state officials, or state entities.
- The Federal Circuit may summarily affirm when no substantial question exists regarding the appeal’s outcome.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the narrow jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Litigants cannot invoke the Tucker Act there to pursue tort allegations against state governments or their officials and entities.
It also illustrates that the Federal Circuit may resolve an appeal through summary affirmance when the jurisdictional defect is clear and the outcome presents no substantial question.