223, 230 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc) (per curiam). 3 . The Tucker Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Claims Court over all claims against the government seeking monetary relief in excess of $10,000, if the claim is brought pursuant to an express or implied contract, or if a non-contractual claim is brought pursuant to a statutory or substantive constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988). Non-contractual claims must be based on statutory or constitutional rights that mandate the payment of money damages. The Federal Circuit has held that a person like Hubbard would be barred from bringing a claim under the Tucker Act because the First Amendment, by its terms, does not mandate the payment of money. United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed.Cir.1983) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1065, 104 S.Ct. 1414,
holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction over a new claim or a claim of different scope that was not previously presented and certified to the contracting officer for decision holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief holding that claims court does not have jurisdiction over wrongful termination claim of probationary civil servant fired for exercising his first amendment freedoms holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal holding that the court of claims did have jurisdiction over plaintiffs statutory claim for back pay including arguments based on the first amendment