United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

The Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments because its authority is limited to claims for money damages and requires an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress.

A retired Army officer sought a declaratory judgment against the United States to challenge his retirement status and claim tax exemptions. The question presented is whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Because the court's jurisdiction is limited to claims for actual, presently due money damages, and because a waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed by Congress, the court holds that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not expand the court's authority. In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, the Court of Claims lacks the power to issue declaratory judgments.

4,444 citation events (2,007 in the last 25 years) across 134 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McCaster v. United States, No. 24-2027, 2025 WL 2304705 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 11, 2025) · Strongest negative: Ray v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1972)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 4 Court of claims jurisdiction and sovereign immunity waiver requirements472 citing cases“cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.”247 citing courts quote it · also cited as 23 L. Ed. 2d at 56; 89 S. Ct. at 1502 · 211 listed here
  • McCaster v. United States, No. 24-2027, 2025 WL 2304705 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 11, 2025).unpublished 2 cites
    ([C]ases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction.’)
  • Salis v. Manzanet-Daniels, No. 1:24-cv-01130 (N.D.N.Y. May 6, 2025).
    (A plaintiff has 1 The Court notes that, although Petitioner is proceeding pro se in this matter, he is not entitled to any special solicitude because he is a recently disbarred attorney. See Salis, 2025 WL 880407 , at…)
  • McGee v. Inman, No. 4:22-cv-00147 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 14, 2022).
    (It is well settled that a Bivens action,” which is the federal version of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, “cannot be prosecuted against the United States and its agencies because of sovereign immunity)
  • Herndon 136007 v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., No. 1:20-cv-01091 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2021).
    ([A] waiver [of sovereign immunity] cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.)
  • Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh v. United States, No. 17-1812 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 22, 2020).published 4 cites
    ([T]he Court of Claims’ jurisdiction to grant relief depends wholly upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity to suit and . . . such a waiver cannot be implied but must be unequivocall…)
  • Church of Scientology W. United States v. United States of Am., Church of Scientology Int'l v. United States, 995 F.2d 230 (9th Cir. 1993).unpublished
    (It is not the province of the courts, but rather that of Congress to remedy this apparent loophole in the statute [§ 7430].)
  • Louis J. Rodrigue, Adm'r of the Est. of William J. Rodrigue v. United States, 968 F.2d 1430 (1st Cir. 1992).published 4 cites
    (must be unequivocally ______ ____ expressed)
  • Corp. Air v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 204 (Ct. Cl. 1992).published 7 cites
    (the passage of Tucker Act in 1887 had not expanded that jurisdiction to equitable matters)
  • Veasey v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 584 (Fed. Cl. 2015).published 3 cites
    “cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been 'within its jurisdiction”
  • Walker v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 304 (Fed. Cl. 2014).published 3 cites
    “cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been 'within its jurisdiction”
Show 201 more citing cases
At page 3 Limiting claims court jurisdiction to money damages58 citing cases“actual, presently due money damages from the united states.”23 citing courts quote it · 57 listed here
Show 47 more citing cases
At page 5 Limiting court authority for declaratory relief without congressional grant42 citing cases“in the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from congress, we decline to assume that the court of claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.”16 citing courts quote it · also cited as 89 S. Ct. at 1503
  • Adegbite v. United States, No. 20-1183, 2021 WL 5045268 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 29, 2021).published
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the Court of [Federal] Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
  • Amanda Beck, a Minor, by Her Father, Henry J. Beck v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1991).published 4 cites
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the Court of Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
  • Farnsworth v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 513 (Fed. Cl. 2012).published 3 cites
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the Court of Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
  • Semper v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 621 (Fed. Cl. 2011).published 3 cites
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the Court of Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
  • Hernandez v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 195 (Fed. Cl. 2010).published 3 cites
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the Court of Claims [now the Court of Federal Claims] has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
  • Marquardt Co. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 14 (Fed. Cl. 2010).published 3 cites
    “there is not a single indication in the declaratory judgment act or its history that congress, in passing that act, intended to give the court of claims an expanded jurisdiction that had been denied to it for nearly a c…”
  • Bevevino v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 397 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published 6 cites
    (This [declaration of rights sought by plaintiff] is essentially equitable relief of a kind that the Court of Claims has held throughout its history, up to the time this present case was decided, that it does not have t…)
  • Pryor v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 97 (Fed. Cl. 2008).published 5 cites
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the court of Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
  • Bank of Guam v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 739 (Fed. Cl. 2008).published 5 cites
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the court of Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
  • Miller v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 195 (Fed. Cl. 2005).published 3 cites
    (In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the Court of Federal Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.)
Show 32 more citing cases
At page 2 Determining court jurisdiction for declaratory judgments33 citing casesjurisdiction of court has been limited to money claims against the federal government2 citing courts put it this way · 31 listed here
Show 21 more citing cases
cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction’no pin page on record · 9 citing cases listed
  • Veasey v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 584 (Fed. Cl. 2015).published 3 cites
    (cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction’)
  • Walker v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 304 (Fed. Cl. 2014).published 3 cites
    (cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction’)
  • Driessen v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 33 (Fed. Cl. 2014).published 3 cites
    (eases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction’)
  • Manuel v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 105 (Fed. Cl. 2014).published 3 cites
    (cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction’)
  • Keehn v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 306 (Fed. Cl. 2013).published 6 cites
    ([C]ases seeking relief other than money damages from the Court of Claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction’)
  • Evans v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 442 (Fed. Cl. 2012).published 5 cites
    (cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been ‘within its jurisdiction’)
  • Jones v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 92 (Fed. Cl. 2012).published 3 cites
    (cases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been “within its jurisdiction’)
  • Hoag v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 246 (Fed. Cl. 2011).published 3 cites
    (eases seeking relief other than money damages from the court of claims have never been “within its jurisdiction’)
  • Smalls v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 300 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published 3 cites
    ([C]ases seeking relief other than money damages from the Court of Claims have never been within its jurisdiction)
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
United States
v.
King
672.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 19, 1969.
Published opinion
395 U.S. 1
1969 U.S. LEXIS 3270
Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Harris Weinstein, and Morton Hollander., Neil B. Kabatchnick argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Richard H. Love., Warner W. Gardner and Benjamin W. Boley filed a brief for the Liner Council, American Institute of Merchant Shipping, as amicus curiae.
Black.
Cited by 1,597 opinions  |  Published
11 passages pin-cited by 19 cases
Pinpoint authority: #3,792 of 633,719
Citer courts: Federal Claims (56) · First Circuit (3)
Mr. Justice Black

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Colonel John P. King, respondent, was retired from the Army for longevity (length of service) over his objection that he should have been retired for physical disability. Had his retirement been based on disability, Colonel King[*2] would have been entitled to an exemption from income taxation allowed by § 104 (a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 104 (a) (4). He brought this action in the Court of Claims alleging that the Secretary of the Army’s action in rejecting his disability retirement was arbitrary, capricious, not supported by evidence, and therefore unlawful, and asked for a judgment against the United States for an amount of excess taxes he had been compelled to pay because he had been retired for longevity instead of disability. The Court of Claims agreed with the United States that the claim as filed was basically one for a refund of taxes and was therefore barred by King’s failure to allege that he had filed a timely claim for refund as required by 26 U. S. C. § 7422 (a). In this situation, the court suggested to counsel that it might have jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act and requested that briefs and arguments on this point be submitted to the court. This was done. The Court of Claims, in an illuminating and interesting opinion by Judge Davis, reached the conclusion that the court could exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201. In so holding, the court thereby rejected the Government’s contentions that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not apply to the Court of Claims and that the court’s jurisdiction is limited to actions asking for money judgments. By this ruling the court expressly declined to follow a long line of its own decisions beginning with Twin Cities Properties, Inc. v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 655 (1935). As the opinion of Judge Davis showed, the question of whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments is both substantial and important. We granted certiorari to decide that question.

The Court of Claims was established by Congress in 1855. Throughout its entire history up until the time that this case was filed, its jurisdiction has been limited[*3] to money claims against the United States Government. In 1868 this Court held that “the only judgments which the Court of Claims [is] authorized to render against the government . . . are judgments for money found due from the government to the petitioner.” United States v. Alire, 6 Wall. 573, 575. In United States v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1, this Court reaffirmed this view of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and held that the passage of the Tucker Act in 1887 had not expanded that jurisdiction to equitable matters. More recently, in 1962, it was said in the prevailing opinion in Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U. S. 530, 557, on a point not disputed by any of the other members of the Court that “[f]rom the beginning [the Court of Claims] has been given jurisdiction only to award damages . . . .” No amendment purporting to increase the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims has been enacted since the decision in Zdanok.

The foregoing cases decided by this Court therefore clearly show that neither the Act creating the Court of Claims nor any amendment to it grants that court jurisdiction of this present case. That is true because Colonel King’s claim is not limited to actual, presently due money damages from the United States. Before he is entitled to such a judgment he must establish in some court that his retirement by the Secretary of the Army for longevity was legally wrong and that he is entitled to a declaration of his right to have his military records changed to show that he was retired for disability. This is essentially equitable relief of a kind that the Court of Claims has held throughout its history, up to the time this present case was decided, that it does not have the power to grant.

It is argued, however, that even if the Court of Claims Act with its amendments did not grant that court the authority to issue declaratory judgments, it was given that authority by the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934. Support for this proposition is drawn from the language in[*4] the Declaratory Judgment Act that “[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” The first answer to this contention is that, as we have pointed out, cases seeking relief other than money damages from the Court of Claims have never been “within its jurisdiction.” And we agree with the opinion of the Court of Claims in this case that the legislative history materials concerning the application of this Act to the Court of Claims “are, at best, ambiguous.” For the court below, it was sufficient that there was no clear indication that Congress affirmatively intended to exclude the Court of Claims from the scope of the Declaratory Judgment Act. We think that this approach runs counter to the settled propositions that the Court of Claims’ jurisdiction to grant relief depends wholly upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity to suit and that such a waiver cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584. This was precisely the position taken by the Court of Claims in a line of its own decisions beginning with Twin Cities Properties, Inc. v. United States, 81 Ct. Cl. 655 (1935). In that case, decided soon after the passage of the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Court of Claims held that it would require a specific and express statute of Congress to give the Court of Claims the power to issue declaratory judgments. The Court of Claims said in Twin Cities that:

“If Congress had intended to extend the scope of this court’s jurisdiction and subject the United States to the declaratory judgment act, we think express language would have been used to do so, and the court is not warranted in assuming an intention to widen its jurisdiction from the general[*5] provisions of the act which concerns a proceeding equitable in nature and foreign to any jurisdiction this court has heretofore exercised.” 81 Ct. Cl., at 658.

We think that the earlier decisions of the Court of Claims and those that have consistently followed them were correct. There is not a single indication in the Declaratory Judgment Act or its history that Congress, in passing that Act, intended to give the Court of Claims an expanded jurisdiction that had been denied to it for nearly a century. In the absence of an express grant of jurisdiction from Congress, we decline to assume that the Court of Claims has been given the authority to issue declaratory judgments.

Reversed.