Thanks for the article obit. A good read. The article does not address Congress’s rationale for creating the new court of claims at all. It does discuss the rationale for reorganizing the patent courts and grouping the appeals courts into one court. And that does make sense. More than half of that article addresses the potential unconstitutional status of the Court of Federal Claims. The conclusion states
“ The second court created by the Act, the United States Claims Court, may be unconstitutional. It is an article I court that arguably deter- mines private rights. It determines claims that citizens make against the government in the government's proprietary capacity. Furthermore, the court is not a mere adjunct to another federal court or to Congress. The court has a unique jurisdictional base with the power to enter final judg- ments, and it determines issues independently of any waiver of sovereign immunity. In determining those issues, the court exercises much of the
judicial power of the United States. All of these factors were important in the Northern Peline plurality's analysis of the article I bankruptcy courts. It remains to be seen whether a majority of the Supreme Court will adopt that reasoning and find the Claims Court similarly unconstitutional.”
Not a very glowing review of the court by these authors. Thanks for this. Too bad Mr. Sammons tried to address this Pro Se.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
