a court address questions pertaining to its or a lower court’s jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. 523 U. S., at 94-95. In the lower courts, in addition to relying on Totten, the Government argued that the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1), required that respondents’ claims be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, rather than in the District Court. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and the Government did not seek review on this question in its petition for certiorari. Pet. for Cert. 8, n. 2. We may assume for purposes of argument that this Tucker Act question is the kind of jurisdictional issue that Steel Co. directs must be resolved before addressing the merits of a claim. Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U. S. 206, 212, 215 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, application of the Totten rule
holding that sovereign immunity may be waived as to a recoup ment noting that the waiver can be by statutory consent to be sued or by the institution of the particular action holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that the tucker act does not waive the governments sovereign immunity for federal reserve activities holding that the tucker act effects a waiver of sovereign immunity and observing that the existence of consent to be sued is a prerequisite for jurisdiction holding that the tucker acts waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims does not extend to claims for contracts implied in law