Dreiling v. United States

Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 04/15/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 ______________________ JUSTIN PAUL DREILING, Waynesville, MO, pro se.

JAMES WILLIAM POIRIER, I, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus- tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre- sented by PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, DOUGLAS K. MICKLE, BRETT SHUMATE. ______________________ Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 04/15/2026

2 DREILING v. US

PER 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

Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 04/15/2026

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).

DISCUSSION 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

Case: 25-2155 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 04/15/2026

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.