Rahman Kamal Rogers v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RAHMAN KAMAL ROGERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1228
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01166-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
______________________
Decided: July 14, 2026
______________________
RAHMAN K AMAL ROGERS , Chandler, AZ, pro se.
CORINNE A NNE N IOSI, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
L ISA L EFANTE D ONAHUE, P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, L OURIE and H UGHES , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 26-1228 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

ROGERS v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Rahman Kamal Rogers appeals an order of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint seeking return of his garnished wages. S.Appx.
1–12.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
To enforce a child support order, Arizona’s Division of
Child Support Services (DCSS) directed Mr. Rogers’ em-
ployer to garnish a part of his wage each pay period.
S.Appx. 1, 26. When Mr. Rogers learned he was compelled
to pay child support, he sued in the Court of Federal Claims
to enjoin further child support deductions and to claw back
garnished wages. Id.; see also S.Appx. 33–34. Proceeding
pro se, Mr. Rogers named as defendants: (1) his employer,
a Missouri-based company, (2) Arizona’s DCSS, (3) the
United States Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), and (4) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his capacity as the
HHS Secretary. S.Appx. 21–22. Mr. Rogers alleged HHS
committed unlawful exaction and a litany of constitutional
and statutory violations when the Arizona DCSS garnished
his wage for child support. S.Appx. 28–33.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the action for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte. S.Appx. 1;
see also Rules 12(b)(1)2, 12(h)(3). The court concluded it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Rogers’ claims because they
were not lodged against the United States and are not
money-mandating. S.Appx. 4. Mr. Rogers appeals. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
1 “S.Appx.” refers to the supplemental appendix at-
tached to Appellee’s Brief.
2 “Rule” refers to the Rules of the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
Case: 26-1228 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 07/14/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

ROGERS v. US 3
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo a Court of Federal Claims dismissal
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Res. Cons. Grp.,
LLC v. United States, 597 F.3d 1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims may
hear claims brought only “against the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see United States v. Sherwood, 312
U.S. 584, 588 (1941). Claims against the United States
that are “frivolous, wholly insubstantial, or made solely for
the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” will not suffice. Co-
lumbus Reg’l Hosp. v. United States, 990 F.3d 1330, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2021). To confer jurisdiction on the Court of Fed-
eral Claims, claims “against the United States” must be
substantive. See Brazos Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. United
States, 144 F.3d 784, 787 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Although we
afford pro se plaintiffs more latitude in pleading, they still
must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evi-
dence. E.g., Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th 1366, 1370
(Fed. Cir. 2023).
On appeal, Mr. Rogers argues the Court of Federal
Claims erred in dismissing his complaint because the ac-
tions of Mr. Rogers’ private employer and the State of Ari-
zona are attributable to the United States. We do not
agree.
The Court of Federal Claims correctly held it lacked ju-
risdiction because Mr. Rogers’ claims contain no substan-
tive allegations against the United States. S.Appx. 5–7.
As the Court of Federal Claims found, Mr. Rogers “does not
plead that the federal government has obtained money
from [him] in any way.” S.Appx. 7. Though he claims on
appeal his “Complaint explicitly alleged that federal actors,
operating through the [HHS] and in coordination with a
state agency, improperly garnished his wages,” Appellant
Br. 50, we see no such allegation. See Appellee’s Br. 9. Ra-
ther, Mr. Rogers’ complaint alleges HHS indirectly exacted
his wages by “acting through” Arizona’s DCSS. S.Appx. 6;
Case: 26-1228 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 07/14/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

ROGERS v. US 4
see also, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 21–22, 26, 28, 35, 43; Appellant
Br. 44; Reply Br. 11, 16. With no factual support, Mr. Rog-
ers contends Arizona became an agent of the federal gov-
ernment by implementing a program for which it could
receive federal funding. See, e.g., Reply Br. 16. Thus, he
reasons, Arizona’s alleged unconstitutional taking or sei-
zure is attributable to the United States because Congress
conditionally funds Arizona’s program. Id. at 9. We have
rejected this theory of liability. B & G Enters., Ltd. v.
United States, 220 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (collect-
ing cases) (“[B]oth the Supreme Court and our predecessor
court . . . have held that the federal government’s condi-
tioning a state or locality’s receipt of federal funds on the
state’s taking a particular action does not make that state
or locality an agent of the federal government.”); see also
Griggs v. Allegheny Cnty., 369 U.S. 84, 89–90 (1962) (hold-
ing a county—not the United States—“took the air ease-
ment in the constitutional sense,” where the county
operated an airport in compliance with federal regulation
and received federal funding).
Mr. Rogers raises additional arguments on appeal, for
example, that his claims based on the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments, the Social Security Act, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act are money-mandating. Appellant
Br. 50–52; Reply Br. 12–15, 17–18. Because the Court of
Federal Claims correctly held Mr. Rogers did not bring any
substantive claim against the United States, we do not
reach these arguments.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Rogers’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1228 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 07/14/2026

-- 4 of 4 --