Case Explained: 24-1990: JACOBSON v. US [OPINION], Precedential

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Elizabeth Jacobson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the Court of Federal Claims lacked authority to review the Attorney General’s determination that her whistleblower declaration under the Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act of 1990 (FIAFEA) was deficient and invalid. The court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard to determine congressional intent regarding judicial review, concluding that 12 U.S.C. § 4208 explicitly bars any court from reviewing actions taken or refused by the Attorney General under FIAFEA, with the sole exception of failure to provide notification under section 4206. Because Jacobson’s claim challenged the Attorney General’s substantive decision rather than a notification failure, and because Congress clearly intended to preclude review, the court ruled that the lower court was not required to first determine whether FIAFEA is a money-mandating statute under *Fisher v. United States*. Additionally, the court rejected Jacobson’s Due Process challenge, noting that Tucker Act jurisdiction for such claims requires an “illegal exaction” where money has been improperly retained by the government, which was not pleaded or present in this case. As a result, Jacobson’s appeal is denied, her complaint remains dismissed, and she is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.