Jacobson v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2026 · Criminal Law

Criminal Lawsubject-matter jurisdictionjudicial reviewTucker Actwhistleblower awardsFIAFEA12 U.S.C. § 4208nonreviewability

Facts

Jacobson filed a whistleblower declaration with the Attorney General under FIAFEA alleging that Wells Fargo fraudulently originated thousands of stated-income loans from 2005 through 2007. The Department of Justice later informed her that the declaration was deficient and invalid because it lacked a new factual element necessary for a prima facie case, she admitted participating in the fraudulent conduct, and the allegations had already been publicly disclosed. Six months later, the government entered a two-billion-dollar settlement with Wells Fargo concerning stated-income loans packaged into residential mortgage-backed securities. Jacobson then sued in the Court of Federal Claims, challenged the Attorney General's invalidity determination, sought a share of the civil penalty recovery, and argued that § 4208 was unconstitutional insofar as it barred judicial review of the refusal to award her a share.

Issue

Whether the Court of Federal Claims had to determine first whether FIAFEA is money-mandating before dismissing Jacobson's claim under § 4208's bar on judicial review. Also, whether Jacobson's Due Process challenge supplied Tucker Act jurisdiction despite § 4208's explicit withdrawal of jurisdiction.

Rule

When Congress clearly and convincingly bars judicial review by providing that no court shall have jurisdiction over claims based on specified agency action, the Court of Federal Claims may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without first deciding whether the underlying statute is money-mandating. In addition, there is no Tucker Act jurisdiction over a Due Process claim unless it is pleaded as an illegal exaction claim involving money improperly exacted or retained by the government.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Chicago, Nora Patel filed a whistleblower declaration under a federal banking-fraud reward statute with language stating: "Notwithstanding any other law, no court shall have jurisdiction over any claim based on any action taken by the Attorney General or any refusal to take action under this subchapter, except for failure to provide notification." After the Attorney General rejected her declaration as invalid, Nora sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a percentage of a later settlement the government reached with a mortgage lender.

What is the strongest argument for dismissing Nora's suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction?

Explanation. The majority held that when Congress says, notwithstanding any other law, that no court shall have jurisdiction over claims based on action taken by the Attorney General under the subchapter, that language is a clear and convincing indication of nonreviewability. A claim attacking the Attorney General's rejection of a declaration falls within that bar, so the Court of Federal Claims may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Derived from Jacobson v. United States (n.d.).)