Case Explained: 24-2166: CUMMINS v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: 2026-08-14 The federal-circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action brought by current and retired federal employees living in non-foreign areas (such as Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico) against the United States for underpayment of salary and retirement benefits. The court held that the United States Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over both the plaintiffs’ salary claims and their retirement benefits claims. Regarding the salary claims, which sought locality pay for the period 1994–2009 and continued cost-of-living allowances (COLA), the court applied the Tucker Act standard requiring a “money-mandating” source of law that creates an entitlement to “presently due money damages.” The court reasoned that even if the statutory provisions excluding non-foreign employees from locality pay or phasing out COLA were deemed unconstitutional and disregarded, the remaining statutes would not mandate specific monetary compensation. Instead, striking those provisions would leave a “vacuum” requiring new data collection by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and new determinations by the President’s agent to calculate pay amounts that did not exist at the time. Consequently, granting relief would require equitable remedies, such as injunctions directing future agency actions, which are outside the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction. Regarding the retirement benefits claims, the court held that challenges to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) calculations under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) fall under the exclusive review process established by the Civil Service Reform Act. This framework requires such claims to be adjudicated first by OPM and then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), with final appeals going to this court. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that it could review these claims in the first instance without an MSPB decision, noting that the statutory scheme designates the MSPB as the primary adjudicator rather than a “dress rehearsal.” The practical consequence is that the plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without reaching the merits of their constitutional arguments regarding due process, equal protection, or bills of attainder. The salary claims cannot proceed in the Court of Federal Claims because they seek equitable relief and lack a money-mandating source for present damages, while the retirement benefit claims must be pursued through the administrative channels of OPM and the MSPB before any judicial review is possible. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.