Gilbert L. MARCUS v. UNITED STATES, 909 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Gilbert L. MARCUS v. UNITED STATES, 909 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
92 citation events (89 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Baqleh v. United States, No. 22-1887 (Fed. Cl. May 8, 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1471 Claims court jurisdiction over social security benefits71 citing cases[W]e hold that the [Court of Federal Claims] has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution.15 citing courts put it this way · 66 listed here
  • Baqleh v. United States, No. 22-1887 (Fed. Cl. May 8, 2023).unpublished
    ([W]e hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.)
  • Simmons v. United States, No. 21-2271 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2022).unpublished
    ([W]e hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.)
  • Franchi v. United States, No. 22-193 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 9, 2022).unpublished
    ([W]e hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.)
  • Morgan v. United States, No. 21-1123 (Fed. Cl. June 28, 2021).unpublished
    ([T]he [Court of Federal Claims] has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits . . . .)
  • Javed v. United States, No. 19-1654 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 15, 2020).unpublished
    ([T]he Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.)
  • Meyers v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-00281 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 24, 2014).unpublished
    ([T]he Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act . . . over claims to social security benefits[.])
  • Treece v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 226 (Fed. Cl. 2010).published 2 cites
    ([W]e hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act ... over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution.)
  • Youmans v. United States, No. 26-1350 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2026).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
  • Fitts v. United States, No. 26-1044 (Fed. Cl. July 23, 2026).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
  • Becton v. United States, No. 26-863 (Fed. Cl. June 12, 2026).published
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
Show 56 more citing cases
  • Nagy v. United States, No. 26-1154 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2026).unpublished
    Our precedent is clear, however, that “the [Court of Federal Claims] has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Case: 26-1154 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 05/08/2026 Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.” Marcus v. United States, 909…
  • Parrott v. United States, No. 26-1172 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2025).unpublished
    See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); 42 U.S.C. 1383(c); Marcos v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990).1 And since 1 We note that to the extent Mr. Parrott’s filings before the trial court could be understood as raising a False Claims A…
  • Kennedy v. United States, No. 23-1276 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 11, 2025).published
    ([W]e hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief u…)
  • Youmans v. United States, No. 25-1902 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 24, 2025).unpublished
    Cir. 2012) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Rogers v. United States, No. 25-1166 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 12, 2025).unpublished
    Cir. May 19, 2025) (“We have long recognized that the Social Security Act’s comprehensive remedial scheme for SSA benefits claims displaces the Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act in a case like this.”) (citing Marc…
  • Parrott v. United States, No. 25-912 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 29, 2025).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Gorrio v. United States, No. 24-1832 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2025).unpublished
    Additionally, we have made clear “that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims to social security benefits.” Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); see also 42 U.S.C.…
  • Harris v. United States, No. 24-859 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 7, 2025).unpublished
    (holding that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over claims for social security benefits)
  • Chisum v. United States, No. 24-67 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 7, 2025).unpublished 2 cites
    To the extent Ms. Chisum seeks to state claims challenging her social security benefits, such claims must be dismissed because Congress vested the district courts, not this court, with jurisdiction over such claims. 2 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g);…
  • Lopez v. United States, No. 23-1522 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023).unpublished
    Among other things, he now contends that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over violations of the Social Security Act, but we have made clear “that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims to social…
  • Manning v. United States, No. 22-1025 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2022).unpublished 2 cites
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
  • Ruzsa v. United States, No. 19-1864 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 10, 2022).unpublished 2 cites
    See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (Def.’s Mot.), ECF No. 7 at 1 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
  • Yigal v. United States, No. 21-1436 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 1, 2021).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 , 756-67 (1975)).
  • Manning v. United States, No. 20-1446 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 6, 2021).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Tucker v. United States, No. 20-1002 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 17, 2020).unpublished
    App’x 45 (Fed Cir. 2008) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Peters v. United States, No. 20-605 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 28, 2020).published 2 cites
    The court leaves plaintiff’s incorrect identification of this court in her quotations unchanged. 5 Defendant argues that plaintiff’s social security claims are beyond the jurisdiction of this court because “[t]he social security statute is…
  • Fogel v. United States, No. 20-980 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 18, 2020).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
  • Kristian v. United States, No. 19-1576 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 31, 2020).unpublished
    But taking into consideration Mr. Kristian's pro se status, the Court has reviewed the government's motion to independently determine if dismissal would be called for due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 7018 2290 0000 5183 3087 The…
  • Duvall v. United States, No. 18-313 (Fed. Cl. June 5, 2018).unpublished
    (stating this Court does not have jurisdiction over claims related to social security benefits)
  • Davenport v. United States, No. 17-1122, 2017 WL 5988354 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 4, 2017).unpublished
    Cl. 312, 315 (2008) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Bush v. United States, 627 F. App'x 928 (Fed. Cir. 2016).unpublished
    We have held that the CFC does not have jurisdiction to hear claims for: Social Security benefits, Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990); civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 , Gant v. United States, 63 Fed.…
  • Brown v. United States, No. 15-1579 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 8, 2016).unpublished
    Cir. 2008) (stating that the denial ofSocial Security benefits does not give rise to a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Driver v. United States, No. 15-607 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 28, 2015).unpublished 2 cites
    The government also argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over claims for social security benefits, Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Jackson v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 997 (Fed. Cir. 2015).unpublished
    See 42 U.S.C. § 405 ; Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
  • Lane v. United States, 573 F. App'x 930 (Fed. Cir. 2014).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990); Brown , F.3d at 623. 7 .
  • Williams v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-00645 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 30, 2014).unpublished
    (discussing Social Security benefits)
  • Richard Lee Paiva v. United States, No. 13-49C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 22, 2013).unpublished 2 cites
    The Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear claims against the United States for money, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1) (2006), but the court “has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims to social security benefits…
  • Larson v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 363 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
  • Dumont v. United States, 345 F. App'x 586 (Fed. Cir. 2009).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
  • Dumont v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 425 (Fed. Cl. 2009).published
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir. 1990).
  • Addams-More v. United States, 296 F. App'x 45 (Fed. Cir. 2008).unpublished
    ([W]e hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief u…)
  • Addams-More v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 312 (Fed. Cl. 2008).published 2 cites
    (Construing appellant’s pleading in a light most favorable to him, that is, as a claim for social security disability benefits, we hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act ... over claims to s…)
  • Jackson v. United States, 242 F. App'x 698 (Fed. Cir. 2007).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g)-(h)).
  • Hurt v. United States, 143 F. App'x 353 (Fed. Cir. 2005).unpublished
    ([W]e hold that the [Court of Federal Claims] has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitle…)
  • Strable v. United States, 123 F. App'x 969 (Fed. Cir. 2004).unpublished
    Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767 , 95 S.Ct. 2457 , 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
  • Canizares v. United States, 81 F. App'x 313 (Fed. Cir. 2003).unpublished
    See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, o…
  • Dorrough v. United States, 13 F. App'x 954 (Fed. Cir. 2001).unpublished
    Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
  • Arunga v. United States, 465 F. App'x 966 (Fed. Cir. 2012).unpublished
  • Michael Gillum v. United States, 74 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1996).unpublished
  • Ross v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 343 (Fed. Cl. 2015).published
  • Topping v. United States, No. 15-1330 (Fed. Cl. June 29, 2016).unpublished
  • Howell v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 775 (Fed. Cl. 2016).published
  • Hester v. United States, No. 17-1843 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 13, 2018).published
  • Hodges v. United States, No. 18-16 (Fed. Cl. May 7, 2018).unpublished
  • Harris v. United States, No. 18-293 (Fed. Cl. June 15, 2018).unpublished
  • Harris v. United States, No. 18-293 (Fed. Cl. June 18, 2018).unpublished
  • Arnold v. United States, No. 21-1393 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 22, 2021).unpublished
  • Jackson v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 560 (Fed. Cl. 2008).published
  • Gray v. United States, No. 22-541 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 8, 2022).unpublished
  • Jackson v. United States, 311 F. App'x 356 (Fed. Cir. 2008).unpublished
  • Greene v. United States, No. 23-1776 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 5, 2023).unpublished
  • McClain v. United States, No. 24-1818 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 19, 2024).unpublished
  • Parra v. United States, No. 25-1527 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2025).unpublished
  • Lopez v. United States, No. 25-1499 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2025).unpublished
  • Everett v. United States, No. 26-908 (Fed. Cl. July 1, 2026).unpublished
  • Johnson v. United States, No. 25-1667 (Fed. Cl. July 31, 2026).unpublished
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gilbert L. Marcus
v.
United States
90-5049.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jul 30, 1990.
Published opinion
909 F.2d 1470
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12549
1990 WL 106801
Also reported at 30 Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv. 582; Unempl. Ins. Rep. (CCH) 15825a
Gilbert L. Marcus, pro se., Steven J. Gillingham, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart M. Ger-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, and Thomas W. Petersen, Asst. Director, of counsel were Donald A. Gonya, Chief Counsel, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Social Sec. Admin., A. George Lowe, Deputy Chief Counsel and Robert Crowe.
Nies, Bennett, Brewster.
Cited by 70 opinions  |  Published
NIES, Chief Judge.

Gilbert L. Marcus appeals from the Claims Court’s order, Marcus v. United States, No. 688-89 C (December 20, 1989) (Bruggink, J.), dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although entitled a “Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Respondum”, appellant seeks a reversal of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying an award of social security disability benefits. Construing appellant’s pleading in a light most favorable to him, that is, as a claim for social security disability benefits, we hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2462-2467, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); (42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (1982) require that action for social security benefits must be brought in district court); cf. Alabama Hospital Ass’n v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 176, 656 F.2d 606 (1981). The judgment of the Claims Court is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.