Contact FreedomWorks

111 K Street NE
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20002

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Judicial Reform Federal Circuit Court

Federal Circuit Court

Leans Pro Freedom
Total Judgeships: 

12 (1 vacancy)

Political Makeup: 

7 Dem – 4 GOP

Washington, DC
The Federal Circuit is unique among the courts of appeals as it is the only court that has its jurisdiction based wholly upon subject matter rather than geographic location. The Federal Circuit Court hears certain appeals from all of the United States District Courts, appeals from certain administrative agencies, and appeals arising under certain statutes.


About The Court:

The Federal Circuit was established on October 1, 1982. The Court is unique in that it is the only court that has its jurisdiction based wholly upon subject matter rather than geographic location. It has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of subject areas, including international trade, government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the government, federal personnel, veterans' benefits, and public safety officers' benefits claims.


View All Judges

Recent Cases

  • Upcoming
  • Heard
  • Decided

Take Action


Contracting Winners and Losers

Tue, 06/03/2014

Kingdomware Techs, Inc. v. United States: Upon the decision by the VA to implement Emergency Notification Service in medical centers, it contracted with the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) to install the service. Kingdomware, a veteran owned small business (VOSB), filed suit stating that the VA participated in unfair market practices by not favoring the VOSB. Precedent states that a government entity is encouraged to obtain services from the FSS before turning to the open commercial market. The District Court upheld and defended the choice of the VA is contracting with the FSS.


The Federal Court upheld the decision, reaffirming the precedent that a government entity is within its liberty to contract with other government entities before opening contractual bids to the open commercial market.

Read the full decision here

Mistake Voids Veteran's Retirement Benefits

Mon, 05/12/2014

Whitby v. Office of Personnel Management (OPM): Whitby is a veteran who suffers from severe PTSD who paid into the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERA). When Whitby retired, OPM denied his benefits request stating that a refund request he issued in 1993 nulled his retirement plan. Whitby filed suit arguing that he never received the benefit reimbursement because of a document error that he blames on his PTSD. The District Court affirmed the OPM rejection of this claim, ruling against Whitby.


The Federal Circuit Court affirms and upholds the decision of the Board and the District Court in denying Whitby his retirement benefits stating that Whitby’s evidence is not substantially supported by evidence and that there is no proof of the OPM acting arbitrary, capricious, or abusive.

Read the full decision here:

Co-Owned Patent Infringement Allowed

Fri, 05/09/2014

Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, INC.: James Taylor is the inventor and patent holder of a storm drain plug. During a divorce with his wife, the patent ownership was split between the two. Taylor filed suit against Taylor Made Plastics for infringing on his patent but the District Court dismissed the case on the basis that since Taylor no longer is the sole owner, and his ex-wife is not a party in the lawsuit, he does not had adequate grounds to sue.


The Federal Circuit Court affirmed.

Read the full decision here

Suing the Stock Market?

Wed, 05/07/2014

Grady v. United States: After losing over $100,000 in the May 6, 2010 stock market “Flash Crash” Grady filed suit against the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). He argues that the FEC broke an “implied in fact” contract with him by not stopping the crash which was caused by an automated investment tool known as a “stop loss order”. The District Court dismissed Grady’s claim stating he did not present adequate grounds for the alleged breach of contract.


The Federal Circuit Court affirmed.

Read the full decision here

Homeless Veteran Given a Break

Wed, 04/23/2014

Checo v. Shinseki: Checo, a veteran sought an increase in disability benefits and the VA Board denied her request. Due to her homelessness, she did not receive notice of the decision until the majority of the filing time had passed, therefore, she filed her Notice of Appeals late. The District Court determined that her homelessness was not the cause of the delay and thus dismissed her case.


The Federal Circuit Court vacated, or nulled, the decision stating that the District Court used an inappropriate due diligence standard in determining their decision.

Read the full decision here