# Howe v. United States

> District Court, D. Massachusetts · April 18, 1986 · 632 F. Supp. 700

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8888656

## Case

- **Full name:** Reginald H. HOWE v. UNITED STATES of America, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and Federal Open Market Committee
- **Court:** District Court, D. Massachusetts
- **Decided:** April 18, 1986
- **Citations:** 632 F. Supp. 700; 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26536
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Caffrey
- **Judges:** Caffrey
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8888656

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM
CAFFREY, Chief Judge.
This is a complaint for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in which Attorney Reginald H. Howe, acting pro se, seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the current monetary system of the United States. Defendants are the United States and the entities responsible for administering the monetary system, namely the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Open Market Committee. This Court has previously allowed a motion to drop the Secretary of the Treasury as a party defendant.
The matter came before the Court on the basis of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and on the basis of the remaining defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The motions have been briefed and orally argued and after hearing, I rule as follows: that the complaint should be dis *701 missed on the basis of several well-established legal doctrines.
1) This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff lacks standing to sue. See, Committee for Monetary Reform v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; 766 F.2d 538, 539 (D.C.Cir.1985); Hor ne v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 344 F.2d 725, 727-28 (8th Cir.1965). See also, Reuss v. Balles, 584 F.2d 461 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 997 , 99 S.Ct. 598 , 58 L.Ed.2d 670 (1978).
2) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he seeks to attack acts of Congress, the constitutionality of which have been upheld by decisions of the Supreme Court in a number of reported opinions, such as the Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 , 20 L.Ed. 287 (1870); Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 , 4 S.Ct. 122 , 28 L.Ed. 204 (1884); as well as the so-called Gold Clause Cases, Norman V. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 294 U.S. 240 , 55 S.Ct. 407 , 79 L.Ed. 885 (1935); Nortz v. United States, 294 U.S. 317 , 55 S.Ct. 428 , 79 L.Ed. 907 (1935); and Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 , 55 S.Ct. 432 , 79 L.Ed. 912 (1935). Accordingly, I rule that the complaint herein should be dismissed.
Order accordingly.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8888656. Public record. Not legal advice.