green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
70.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2022–2023 ·
…e hold that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act . . . over claims to social security benefits.
at p. 1471
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Baqleh v. United States
e hold that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act . . . over claims to social security benefits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Simmons v. United States
e hold that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act . . . over claims to social security benefits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Franchi v. United States
e hold that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act . . . over claims to social security benefits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Morgan v. United States
he has no jurisdiction under the tucker act, 28 u.s.c. 1491 (a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Javed v. United States
he claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act . . . over claims to social security benefits.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Meyers v. United States
he claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act . . . over claims to social security benefits
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Treece v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
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.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Becton v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nagy v. United States
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 4 NAGY v. US Act . . . over claims to social security benefits.” Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Parrott v. United States
See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g); 42 U.S.C. 1383(c); Marcos v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kennedy v. United States
Cir. 2012) (“[T]he statute makes clear that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction because claims for social security benefits must be filed in a federal district court.”); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed Cir. 1990) (“[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 under the Constitution.” (citations omitted)); Peters v. United States, 149 Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Youmans v. United States
Cir. 2012) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rogers v. United States
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 Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Parrott v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gorrio v. United States
Additionally, we have made clear “that the Claims Court has no jurisdic- tion under the Tucker Act over claims to social security benefits.” Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chisum v. United States
(2×)
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); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. United States
Cl. 421, 429 (2016) (analyzing a claim under 31 U.S.C. § 1304 ); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lopez v. United States
Among other things, he now contends that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over violations of the Social Secu- rity Act, but we have made clear “that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims to so- cial security benefits.” Marcos v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Manning v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Manning v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruzsa v. United States
(2×)
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.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yigal v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Manning v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tucker v. United States
App’x 45 (Fed Cir. 2008) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peters v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
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 clear that challenges relating to social security benefits ‘shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which plaintiff resides.’” (quoting 42 U.S.C § 405(g) and citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fogel v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kristian v. United States
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 government's argument for dismissal---that our court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction over claims for Social Security benefits, Def.'s Mot. at 3-5 (citing, inter alia, Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duvall v. United States
See 38 U.S.C. § 51 l(a) ("The Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans."); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duvall v. United States
The Court also does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction to consider social security benefits or veterans’ benefits claims See 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a) (“The Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans.”); Marcus v. United Slates, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Davenport v. United States
Cl. 312, 315 (2008) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. United States
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bush v. United States
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.Cl. 311, 316 (2004), aff'd, 417 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2005); Fourteenth Amendment violations, LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025, 1028 (Fed.Cir.1995); or infractions of the feder *930 al criminal code, Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 379 (Fed.Cir.1994), which includes conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Driver v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
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.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. United States
See 42 U.S.C. § 405 ; Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lane v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990); Brown , F.3d at 623. 7 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. United States
See Smalls v. united states,87 Fed, cl. 300, 306 (2009) (discussing veterans benefits); Marcus v. united states, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Lee Paiva v. United States
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.” Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Lee Paiva v. United States
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.” Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Larson v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dumont v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dumont v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir. 1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Addams-More v. United States
The Court of Federal Claims similarly lacks jurisdiction over Ms. Addams-More’s Fifth Amendment regulatory tak *48 ing claim because Appellant is alleging a violation of her constitutional rights due to a denial of social security benefits. 4 See Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“[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 under the Constitution.”); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Addams-More v. United States
(2×)
Defendant argues that the court “does not possess jurisdiction to entertain claims related to social security benefits.” Id. at 5 (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“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 social security benefits____”)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g)-(h)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hurt v. United States
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405 (g) and (h) (providing that actions concerning the denial of social security benefits must be brought in district court); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“[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.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Strable v. United States
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Canizares v. United States
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, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages not sounding in tort”); Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dorrough v. United States
Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Gillum v. United States
On June 16, 1995, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction based on Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990), in which we held that the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over claims to social security benefits. 3 Jurisdiction being a question of law, we review the issue de novo.
cited
Cited "see"
Lopez v. United States
Cir. Oct. 27, 2023)); see Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
30 soc.sec.rep.ser. 582, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 15825a Gilbert L. Marcus
v.
United States
v.
United States
90-5049.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jul 30, 1990.
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.