Case: 25-1352 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NAVARRA S. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1352 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01913-RMM, Judge Robin M. Meriweather. -------------------------------------------------

NAVARRA S. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1353 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01914-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla. Case: 25-1352 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2025

2 SCOTT v. US

______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER In these appeals, the United States moves to summar- ily affirm the judgments of the United States Court of Fed- eral Claims dismissing Navarra S. Scott’s complaints alleging religious discrimination and violations of free speech and what the court understood as a “copyright in- fringement claim, purportedly asserted on behalf of God.” Appeal No. 2025-1352, ECF No. 4, Appx003. Ms. Scott op- poses and submits several filings of her own, including her opening briefs. Summary disposition is appropriate here because there is no “substantial question regarding the outcome” of the appeals. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdiction 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 compensation by the Federal Government.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that Ms. Scott could not sue in that court based on alleged violations of the First Amendment because that amendment is not money-mandating. United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The court was also clearly correct that it lacked jurisdiction over claims against states or state entities. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941). Finally, for the reasons explained in its dismis- sal order, the trial court was clearly correct that Ms. Scott had not plausibly alleged copyright infringement. Case: 25-1352 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2025

SCOTT v. US 3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motions are granted. The judgments of the United States Court of Federal Claims are summarily af- firmed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

April 17, 2025 Date