A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has thrown out a $1 billion lawsuit brought by a Black military veteran against President Donald J. Trump that alleged widespread discrimination and retaliation against Black service members.
U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich granted Trump’s motion to dismiss the case and denied a competing motion for default judgment filed by the plaintiff, Kevin Wells. Wells represented himself in the action, which named Trump in both his individual and official capacities.
Wells purported to represent “all Black or African American Veterans having been drafted or served in the Armed forces since or at the same time from the Vietnam Wa[r] . . . until this present time where Donald Trump is considered Commander and [sic] Chief.”
In his complaint, Wells accused Trump of violating the Constitution and federal law through executive orders that “violate Due Process and Equal Protection,” “attacks on diversity and Inclusion in all Federal Agencies,” and the alleged “firing [of] Qualified Black Generals in the Armed Forces.”
The lawsuit further cited what Wells described as “cruel and unusual behavior of calling Veterans and Soldiers, ‘losers and suckers’” and alleged “actions of retaliation to African Americans.”
Wells asserted that these actions caused a “hostile atmosphere . . . in education, The Military, and all aspects of this society causing the denial of federal rights,” such as veterans benefits and Social Security, while causing him personal “pain, mental anguish, emotional distress, [and] loss of enjoyment of life.”
In the memorandum opinion, Judge Friedrich ruled that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case. The opinion noted that sovereign immunity shields the federal government and officials acting in their official capacities from such claims absent an explicit waiver, which was not present under the constitutional provisions or civil rights statutes Wells cited.
The court also concluded that Wells failed to establish legal standing under Article III of the Constitution. Judge Friedrich wrote that Wells did not demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury tied directly to Trump’s actions, noting that his claims regarding benefit delays lacked specific factual connections to the challenged policies and otherwise relied on generalized grievances shared across a broader group.
Additionally, the court denied Wells’s motion for default judgment, finding that Trump had actively defended against the suit by filing a motion to dismiss, and reiterating that default judgment cannot be granted where the court lacks underlying jurisdiction over the claims.
READ: Federal Judge Blocks State Department Visa Freeze For Lawsuit Plaintiffs
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
