Roberta Agyeman v. Todd Blanche, et al. — D.C. Cir. (Sep 28, 2026)

The D.C. Circuit hears from people denied payments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The fund's administrator, called the Special Master, ruled that they were not eligible for compensation. They sued, saying she had misread the eligibility law. The district court did not decide whether they qualified. It dismissed the lawsuit because it held that Congress had barred court review of compensation decisions. The claimants will argue that deciding eligibility is different from deciding how much to pay, and that legal mistakes remain reviewable. The government will contend that the review ban covers eligibility decisions too. The lawyers also discuss mandamus: a court order directing a government official to carry out a legally required duty. One procedural dispute is whether the claimants properly requested that remedy. The threshold question is whether a court can review the denial, not what payment to award.
Roberta Agyeman v. Todd Blanche, et al. (No. 25-5360) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 28, 2026.
Sources:
Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording:
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5360.mp3
Case, counsel and argument date — official D.C. Circuit listing:
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9
Background and dismissal — D.D.C. memorandum opinion, September 17, 2025:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00529/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00529-0.pdf
Fund administration and judicial-review provisions — 34 U.S.C. § 20144:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20144
Mandamus jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. § 1361:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1361