Fed. Cir.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Every decision we've summarized from United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

May 11 2026
25-2141 Panel Decision

Prewitt v. Collins

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the petitioner had adequate alternative means of relief through a standard appeal and that mandamus was not the proper mechanism to challenge the constitutionality of the veterans' claims system.

May 8 2026
26-1154 Panel Decision

Nagy v. United States

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's complaint seeking monetary relief for alleged Social Security Administration violations. The court held that the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims for social security benefits under the Tucker Act.

May 7 2026
23-2331 Panel Decision

Oliva v. Department of Veterans Affairs

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision to uphold the removal of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that it would have removed the employee regardless of any protected whistleblowing activity.

May 7 2026
26-1127 Panel Decision

Robles v. Collins

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a veteran's claim for disability benefits due to lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the appellant challenged factual determinations rather than presenting a reviewable legal or constitutional issue.

May 6 2026
25-1111 Panel Decision

Horowitz v. United States

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the United States and the State of Hawaii. The court held that the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the plaintiffs sought only equitable relief and failed to identify a money-mandating source of law.