Background
Garvester Bracken, an incarcerated individual, filed a habeas corpus petition with the United States Supreme Court in May 2021. Although he attempted to proceed as an indigent person, Supreme Court personnel required him to pay the standard $300 filing fee. Bracken subsequently filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on August 4, 2025, seeking a refund of that fee, alleging that the Supreme Court’s collection of the fee violated his right of access to courts. Due to an administrative error, the complaint was not processed or formally docketed until June 25, 2026, when Bracken inquired about his case status. The court retroactively assigned the filing date to preserve his original submission date.
Bracken framed his claims as directed against “a bond of federal employees” and cited the Administrative Procedure Act as authority. He had not paid the Court of Federal Claims’ required $350 filing fee nor submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court noted that even if Bracken were granted indigent status, he would remain obligated to pay the fee through installments deducted from his prison account, resulting in the same fee obligation he challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Bracken’s claims for three independent and insurmountable reasons. First, the only proper defendant in a Court of Federal Claims action is the United States itself, not individual federal employees. Because Bracken’s complaint targeted federal employees rather than the United States, his suit fell outside the court’s jurisdictional scope under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).
Second, the Court of Federal Claims cannot review or second-guess determinations made by other courts, including fee collection by the Supreme Court. The administration of filing fees and in forma pauperis status in the Supreme Court is governed exclusively by that Court’s own rules and statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1911. The lower Court of Federal Claims cannot serve as an appellate arbiter to compel refunds of fees collected by a superior tribunal.
Third, Bracken’s reliance on the Administrative Procedure Act failed because the APA does not authorize money damages, and APA enforcement lies exclusively in federal district courts, not the Court of Federal Claims. Although Bracken cited Bounds v. Smith for the principle of access to courts, constitutional claims lacking an explicit money-mandating remedy fall outside the Tucker Act’s jurisdictional grant. The $300 fee collected pursuant to the Supreme Court’s autonomous administrative practices did not constitute an “illegal exaction” that the court could remedy. Transfer to a district court would be futile because a lower court likewise lacks authority to order a higher court to refund fees.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Federal Claims has strictly limited jurisdiction and can only hear non-tort monetary claims against the United States based on the Constitution, federal statutes, regulations, or contracts under the Tucker Act.
- The only proper defendant in a Court of Federal Claims action is the United States; claims against individual federal employees fall outside the court’s jurisdiction regardless of merit.
- The Court of Federal Claims cannot review the fee-setting or administrative practices of the Supreme Court or other superior tribunals, even when an indigent litigant contests the fairness of required fees.
- The Administrative Procedure Act does not provide a basis for money damages claims in the Court of Federal Claims; such claims must be brought in federal district court.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Federal Claims and reinforces the principle that lower courts cannot second-guess or correct the administrative decisions of superior tribunals. For pro se litigants, particularly incarcerated persons attempting to access the courts, the ruling demonstrates that challenging fee collection practices requires filing in the correct forum—and that the Court of Federal Claims is not that forum. The Supreme Court’s authority to set and enforce its own filing fees remains insulated from challenge through this specialized court.
The opinion also highlights the structural doctrine preventing lower courts from ordering higher courts to take action, a foundational principle of judicial hierarchy. While the court acknowledged and apologized for the ten-month administrative delay in processing Bracken’s complaint, it emphasized that even prompt consideration would not have altered the jurisdictional outcome. For litigants seeking refunds of Supreme Court fees, the decision forecloses the Court of Federal Claims as a remedy and leaves federal district court as the only alternative—though the opinion suggests district courts would face similar jurisdictional obstacles.