In Re NADJA YANG v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-00775-EGB. We deny the petition. Education

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re NADJA YANG,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-126
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-00775-EGB, Senior
Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Nadja Yang petitions for a writ of mandamus to, among
other things, direct the United States Court of Federal
Claims to grant her motion for leave to file a brief amicus
curiae in Education Creditor Trust v. United States, No.
1:24-cv-00775-EGB. We deny the petition.
Education Creditor Trust, among others, has sued the
United States over a series of transactions with the Depart-
ment of Education, and that action remains pending. In
that action, Ms. Yang, a third party, has submitted several
copies of a motion for leave to file an amicus brief with her
Case: 26-126 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE YANG 2
proposed brief to the Court of Federal Claims. The court
issued an order directing the clerk “to return the identified
submissions to the party unfiled” because “there is no mo-
tion pending for which an amicus brief would be relevant”
and because “the brief does not comply with the Rules of
the Court of Federal Claims.” Dkt. No. 39. Ms. Yang now
petitions this court to, among other things, direct the trial
court to grant her leave to file the brief.
A petitioner seeking the extraordinary remedy of man-
damus must show: (1) “no other adequate means to attain
the relief [s]he desires,” (2) a “clear and indisputable” right
to relief, and (3) the writ is “appropriate under the circum-
stances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
380–81 (2004) (cleaned up). Ms. Yang has not satisfied
that standard here. “The grant or denial of a request to
intervene or to appear as amicus is discretionary with the
court.” In re Opprecht, 868 F.2d 1264, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(citation omitted). Ms. Yang’s submissions to this court do
not demonstrate clearly and indisputably that the Court of
Federal Claims acted outside the permissible range of dis-
cretion in its consideration of her amicus submissions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
April 21, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-126 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/21/2026

-- 2 of 2 --