Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In a breach of contract action against the United States, Court of Federal Claims' final judgment of dismissal is affirmed where: 1) the court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's breach of contract claims for all years prior to 2001 as the claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; 2) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's breach of express contract claim as plaintiff cannot establish that its express United States government obligations (USGO) contract included a duty exempting the USGOs from taxation by the Guam Territorial Income Tax and thus the government did not breach the USGO contract by imposing the tax; 3) the court properly dismissed the breach of implied-in-fact contract claim as plaintiff cannot prove the existence of an implied-in-fact contract entitling it to the requested relief; 4) the court properly dismissed plaintiff's reformation claim; and 5) since all of plaintiff's claims are dismissed, it is impossible for plaintiff to prevail on its request for declaratory relief.
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 12, 2009
Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
For Defendant: Brian A. Mizoguchi, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.