in this case, unrelated to any money claim pending before it, would effectively override Congress’s decision not to make the Declaratory Judgment Act applicable to the Court of Federal Claims, Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. United States, 160 F.3d 714, 716-17 (Fed.Cir.1998); see also United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 179 L.Ed.2d 723 (2011) (The United States Court of Federal Claims “has no general power to provide equitable relief against the Government or its officers.”). Moreover, in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), this court can only provide declaratory or injunc-tive relief “as an incident of and collateral to” a judgment for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1492(a)(2); see also Taylor v. United States, 113 Fed.Cl. 171, 173 (2013) (<HOLDING>). For example, in a case brought under the
holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits holding that the tucker act does not provide a means by which the court of federal claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a preaward protest or the application of section 7428 of the internal revenue code holding that the tucker acts waiver does not extend to statutory claims holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases holding that contractual claim must be dismissed under the tucker act but other claims could go forward on remand