In reviewing this issue, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) went back to the fundamentals of establishing jurisdiction over a taking claim, starting with the Tucker Act, the statute from which “the Court derives its power.” Plaintiffs, Natasha Rumsey, who was employed as a teacher by the Corona Norco Unified School District in Corona, California, and the Education 1st Learning Center filed a taking case in the CFC, alleging that the federal government unconstitutionally took her business assets and intellectual property by actions taken by state and local governments who receive funding from or participate in programs funded by the Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant program.
Rumsey argued that the CFC had jurisdiction over the claim because various state and local entities had misappropriated her intellectual property rights and denied the grant proposals Rumsey had submitted to them.
The CFC, however, disagreed, rejecting Rumsey’s argument that it had jurisdiction over the claims, explaining Rumsey alleged “no direct contacts with or actions by HUD officials or employees.” More problematic, the Court explained, was that “almost every factual allegation focuses on the acts of non-federal entities.” Rumsey’s complaint contained no allegation that Rumsey had submitted any funding proposal directly to HUD.
In holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Rumsey’s claim, the Court underscored that just because the federal government conditions a state or locality’s receipt of federal funds on “the state’s taking a particular action does not make that state or locality an agent of the federal government.” Further, the Court noted that here, the “municipal grantee of [the Community Block grant] funds is largely in control of disbursement.”
Read full decision here.
