Justin Paul Dreiling v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JUSTIN PAUL DREILING,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1409
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-02133-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO , H UGHES , and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Justin Paul Dreiling brought this suit against the
United States seeking a declaration that “[t]he composition
of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit” is “contrary
to law” by not including district court judges and challeng-
ing “the ability” of the Council to issue certain orders. ECF
No. 7 at 63, 73. The United States Court of Federal Claims
Case: 26-1409 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

DREILING v. US 2
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Dreiling appeals and
files his opening brief. The United States moves to sum-
marily affirm. Mr. Dreiling opposes.
As long understood by the Supreme Court, the Tucker
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the review authority of the
Court of Federal Claims to claims for money damages
against the United States based on sources of substantive
law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compen-
sation by the Federal Government,” United States v. Nav-
ajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (citation omitted).
Here, Mr. Dreiling has readily acknowledged that he is not
presenting such claims. ECF No. 11 at 8, 12. Thus, “no
substantial question regarding the outcome . . . exists.”
Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Mr. Dreiling contends that “[t]he jurisdiction of the[]
Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) is not
limited to only money-mandating claims.” ECF No. 7 at 53.
But, as we have repeatedly explained to him, “[t]his court
has no power to overturn long-standing and binding Su-
preme Court precedent holding the Court of Federal
Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to monetary claims against
the government.” Dreiling v. United States, No. 2025-2155,
2026 WL 1020560, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2026).
Mr. Dreiling also opposes the motion based on the as-
sertion that we (and all members of the Judicial Council)
should recuse as “a party to the appeal.” ECF No. 11 at 5
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 455). However, the judges on this panel
are not the defendants here. And we readily find a reason-
able observer would not conclude that our membership on
the Judicial Council is a basis to reasonably question our
impartiality in deciding whether Mr. Dreiling’s claims
against the United States fall within the limited jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Federal Claims.
Accordingly,
Case: 26-1409 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

DREILING v. US 3
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.
The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims
is summarily affirmed.
(2) Any other pending motion is denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
May 22, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1409 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 05/22/2026

-- 3 of 3 --