Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87, 138, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810) (“A bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both.” (emphasis added)); see also Mark Strasser, Ex Post Fact Laws, Bills ofAttainder, and the Definition of Punishment: On DOMA the Hawaii Amendment, and Federal Constitutional Constraints, 48 Syracuse L.Rev. 227, 238-39 (1998). The issue before the court, however, is not whether the Bill of Attainder Clause mandates the payment of money when Congress violates the Clause by enacting a bill of attainder. Instead, the issue is whether the Bill of Attainder Clause, as alleged and pled, is money-mandating. See Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173 (“If the co (1985)); see also Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284, 288 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, the Ninth Amendment and Tenth
holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief holding that the due process clause requires notice of right to optout of suits for money damages holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof and that such a disposition does not violate the due process clause holding that the due process clause does not obligate the government to pay money damages