Taylor Energy Co. v. Dep't of the Interior

3 Citing cases

  1. Saltzman v. United States

    No. 2024-1785 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2025)

    To the extent Mr. Saltzman is challenging the merits of the Department of the Interior's decisions, "[n]either the Claims Court nor this court is empowered to review IBLA decisions." Taylor Energy Co. v. Dep't of the Interior, 990 F.3d 1303, 1310; see also Aulston, 823 F.2d at 514 ("[W]here the administrative agencies of the Interior Department have decided that the United States (not the claimants) own the disputed property, the Court of Claims could not review or overturn that administrative determination even though that court indisputably had jurisdiction over 'taking' claims.").

  2. Columbus Reg'l Hosp. v. United States

    990 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2021)   Cited 14 times
    Concluding that the plaintiff "never had an unconditional interest" in certain funds because the government "expressly reserved the right to recover those funds for certain reasons within a specific period of time"

    Similarly, following an adverse decision by the Interior Board of Land Appeals ("IBLA"), the Taylor Energy Company sought to file an action in the Claims Court for breach of contract and to reverse the IBLA's decision. See Taylor Energy Co. v. Dep't of the Interior , No. 20-1909, 990 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021). We noted that review of IBLA decisions lies in district courts and that IBLA decisions are binding on the Claims Court in related lawsuits.

  3. CACI, Inc. v. United States Navy

    674 F. Supp. 3d 257 (E.D. Va. 2023)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Following that principle, when parties seek a remedy that the Claims Court cannot provide, courts consistently hold that federal district courts have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fort Bend Cnty. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 59 F.4th 180, 192-93 (5th Cir. 2023) (holding that Tucker Act claim for Takings Clause damages would not provide adequate remedy to county that sought order requiring government to comply with regulatory obligations); Taylor Energy Co. v. Dep't of the Interior, 990 F.3d 1303, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (jurisdiction lied in federal district court because a Tucker Act suit would not provide an adequate remedy to party that asked court to set aside administrative decision). In those cases, any such remedy for money damages would not have been adequate given the nature of the claims.