Navarra S. Scott v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
NAVARRA S. SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1352
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01913-RMM, Judge Robin M. Meriweather.
-------------------------------------------------
NAVARRA S. SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1353
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-01914-AOB, Judge Armando O. Bonilla.
Case: 25-1352 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

SCOTT v. US 2
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In these appeals, the United States moves to summar-
ily affirm the judgments of the United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims dismissing Navarra S. Scott’s complaints
alleging religious discrimination and violations of free
speech and what the court understood as a “copyright in-
fringement claim, purportedly asserted on behalf of God.”
Appeal No. 2025-1352, ECF No. 4, Appx003. Ms. Scott op-
poses and submits several filings of her own, including her
opening briefs.
Summary disposition is appropriate here because there
is no “substantial question regarding the outcome” of the
appeals. Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491, limits the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal
Claims to claims for money damages against the United
States based on sources of substantive law that “can fairly
be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal
Government.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S.
287, 290 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that Ms. Scott
could not sue in that court based on alleged violations of
the First Amendment because that amendment is not
money-mandating. United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d
882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The court was also clearly correct
that it lacked jurisdiction over claims against states or
state entities. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584,
588 (1941). Finally, for the reasons explained in its dismis-
sal order, the trial court was clearly correct that Ms. Scott
had not plausibly alleged copyright infringement.
Case: 25-1352 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

SCOTT v. US 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motions are granted. The judgments of the
United States Court of Federal Claims are summarily af-
firmed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
April 17, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1352 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2025

-- 3 of 3 --