Justin Paul Dreiling v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2025-2155
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00491-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
Decided: April 15, 2026
______________________
J USTIN P AUL D REILING, Waynesville, MO, pro se.
J AMES WILLIAM P OIRIER, I, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , D OUGLAS K. MICKLE,
BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and R EYNA, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

DREILING v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Staff Sergeant Justin Paul Dreiling appeals a decision
of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing
his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
SSG Dreiling filed a complaint in the Court of Federal
Claims alleging his son was denied the opportunity to play
in the Fort Leonard Wood youth soccer league because his
son had not received the annual influenza vaccine.
Appx. 2; Appx. 11.1 SSG Dreiling alleged: (1) the United
States Army Installation Management Command
(IMCOM) had no authority to promulgate IMCOM Regula-
tion 608-10-1, which requires all children participating in
youth sports leagues on base to receive the current influ-
enza vaccine; and (2) IMCOM Regulation 608-10-1 violated
SSG Dreiling’s constitutionally protected parental rights.
Appx. 11. SSG Dreiling sought injunctive relief to require
that the IMCOM Commanding General deem IMCOM Reg-
ulation 608-10-1 unenforceable and allow his son to partic-
ipate in Army sports leagues without regard to his
vaccination status. Appx. 2; Appx. 19. The government
moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim. Appx. 2. The Court of Federal
Claims dismissed SSG Dreiling’s complaint for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction because SSG Dreiling failed to
identify a money-mandating source of law within Tucker
Act jurisdiction. Appx. 3–5. The court also concluded
transferring the case to a district court would be futile be-
cause SSG Dreiling failed to state a claim that the delega-
tion of authority to the IMCOM director to set vaccination
1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to
SSG Dreiling’s brief.
Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

DREILING v. US 3
policy was contrary to law. Appx 5–6. SSG Dreiling ap-
peals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo whether the Court of Federal
Claims has subject matter jurisdiction. 112 Genesee Street,
LLC v. United States, 166 F.4th 1017, 1021 (Fed. Cir.
2026). The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims
subject matter jurisdiction for “claim[s] against the United
States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of
Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or
upon any express or implied contract with the United
States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases
not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Under the
Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a money-mandating
source of law, which “can fairly be interpreted as mandat-
ing compensation by the Federal Government for the dam-
age sustained.” Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United
States, 590 U.S. 296, 322 (2020) (quoting United States v.
Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (cleaned up)).
SSG Dreiling identifies no money-mandating source of
law grounding his claim for relief under the Tucker Act.
Rather, SSG Dreiling argues that “[t]he plain language
and Congressional history of the Tucker Act provide no in-
dication that the Tucker Act is limited to monetary
claims.”2 Dreiling Br. 17–18; see id. at 11 (“The plain lan-
guage of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), as conferred by Congress,
also states . . . that the Court of Federal Claims has juris-
diction upon ‘any’ claim founded upon ‘any regulation of the
executive department.”). Relying on Justice Thomas’ con-
currence in Gamble v. United States, SSG Dreiling argues
2 SSG Dreiling raised similar arguments before us
regarding the scope of Tucker Act jurisdiction under a dif-
ferent set of facts in Dreiling v. United States, No. 2022-
2292, 2023 WL 2534051 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2023).
Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

DREILING v. US 4
we should overrule Supreme Court precedent to conform
with SSG Dreiling’s interpretation of the Tucker Act,
which would allow plaintiffs to bring equitable claims be-
fore the Court of Federal Claims. Id. at 20–22 (quoting 587
U.S. 678, 710–23 (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring)). In
SSG Dreiling’s view, “this Court truly has a duty and obli-
gation to correct demonstrably erroneous precedents that
are contrary to the original meaning of the law.” Id. at 22.
This court has no power to overturn long-standing and
binding Supreme Court precedent holding the Court of
Federal Claims’ jurisdiction is limited to monetary claims
against the government. See, e.g., United States v. Jones,
131 U.S. 1, 19 (1889); Maine Cmty., 590 U.S. at 322–23.
The Court of Federal Claims therefore did not err in hold-
ing it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
SSG Dreiling’s claims.3
CONCLUSION
We have considered SSG Dreiling’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 Because we conclude the Court of Federal Claims
lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we do not address
whether SSG Dreiling’s complaint failed to state a claim.
Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 04/15/2026

-- 4 of 4 --