Legal Opinion

Michael Sammons v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided June 19, 2017No. 17-50201 Summary CalendarPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Michael Sammons, proceeding pro se, brought a takings claim against the United States. The district court concluded that, under the Tucker Act, Sammons must pursue his claim in the Court of Federal Claims (“CFC”), so it dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Sammons contends that the Tucker Act is unconstitutional because it requires him to litigate his claim in an Article I court. We affirm.

I

Congress created the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) to provide, among other…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Stern v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Library of Congress v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Ft Bend Cty v. US Army CorpsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2023
  2. Eugene C. Smalls v. Army and Air Force Exchange- (United States of America)District Court, W.D. Texas · 2026
  3. Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2019
  4. Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020
  5. Fort Bend County v. United States Army Corps Of EngineersDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2021

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API