PLAGER, Circuit Judge.
This case first came before the court as a regulatory takings case. The United States Government (Government) appealed from the [1547]*1547merits of a decision of the Court of Federal Claims, which had granted monetary relief to a property owner, Loveladies Harbor, Inc. and Loveladies Harbor, Unit D, Inc. (collectively, Loveladies), as a consequence of the Government’s denial of a wetlands development permit. In light of an intervening decision by this court on an unrelated matter, the Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court has taken the jurisdictional dispute in banc. We hold that this court has jurisdiction over the matter. The panel decision on the merits of the dispute will be issued in a separate opinion.
BACKGROUND
The facts of the case, insofar as they are relevant to the jurisdictional question, may be summarized as follows.1 Plaintiffs Love-ladies own a wetlands tract located on Long Beach Island, Ocean County, New Jersey. Loveladies sought a fill permit, pursuant to § 404 of the Clean Water Act,2 from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps denied the permit. Loveladies challenged the validity of that permit denial in a proceeding in federal district court under § 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).3 The challenge proved unsuccessful.4
Loveladies appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the judgment for the Government.5 Loveladies then proceeded with a suit in the Court of Federal Claims which they had filed the year before.6 (By consent of the parties, prosecution of the suit had been stayed pending the outcome of the district court litigation.) In their Court of Federal Claims suit, Loveladies maintained that the permit denial constituted a taking of private property, and that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution required the Government to compensate Loveladies. The Court of Federal Claims agreed, and awarded Loveladies compensation of $2,658,000 plus interest.7 The Government appealed the award to this court.
After a panel of the court heard oral argument in this case, but before an opinion was issued, the full court sitting in banc decided UNR Industries, Inc. v. United States, 962 F.2d 1013 (Fed.Cir.1992) (UNR). That case was taken on certiorari by the Supreme Court and affirmed. Keene Corp. v. United States, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993) (UNR/Keene). In UNR this court undertook a comprehensive review of the jurisprudence surrounding 28 U.S.C. § 1500, which in pertinent part states:
The United States [Court of Federal Claims] shall not have jurisdiction of any claims for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States....
Based on our decision in UNR, but prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in UNR/ Keene, the Government moved in this court to vacate the judgment in favor of Lovela-dies. The Government in its motion argued that UNR compelled the conclusion that, since the suit in the Court of Federal Claims had been filed while the appeal in the earlier district court suit was still pending, § 1500 [1548]*1548bars the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims over the cause.
In opposition to the Government’s motion, Loveladies argued that UNR did not compel that conclusion for several reasons, including that the same claims were not involved and that Casman v. United States, 135 Ct.Cl. 647 (1956) and like cases, distinguishing claims on the basis of the relief sought, supported jurisdiction.
Because of the importance of the issue, and the fact that other pending cases raise the same issue,8 this court, sitting in banc, by order dated September 28,1993, called for briefs and subsequently heard oral argument regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, and by derivation the jurisdiction of this court, over this matter. After considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, and those of the several amici,9 we conclude that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over the cause, and the appeal on the merits of that court’s decision is properly before this court. The Government’s motion to dismiss is denied.
DISCUSSION
I.
As a preliminary matter, we observe that our decision in UNR does not constrain our decision today. Appellants in UNR, asbestos manufacturers, filed suit against the United States in the district court seeking money damages based on tort claims. They then filed in the Court of Federal Claims for money damages based on certain contracts they had with the Government. Both suits arose out of the same underlying events. Appellants challenged the longstanding rule that suits involving the same operative facts and seeking the same relief were the same “claims” for purposes of § 1500, even if based on different legal theories. See British American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 438 (1939) (British American).
Appellants in UNR raised another issue. Appellants’ contractual claims had been filed, but not acted upon, when their district court claims were dismissed. Thus, when the Government moved to dismiss their claims in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to § 1500, appellants had no pending claims. Appellants hence argued that jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims was barred only if a claim was pending when the Government moved to dismiss under § 1500. In UNR, this court rejected both of appellants’ contentions.
The Supreme Court on certiorari agreed. In UNR/Keene, the Supreme Court held that § 1500 precluded the Court of Federal Claims from exercising jurisdiction over the manufacturers’ contract-based claims against the United States, because the manufacturers’ tort claims were still pending in district court when suit in the Court of Federal Claims was filed. The question of whether another claim is “pending” for purposes of § 1500 is determined at the time at which the suit in the Court of Federal Claims is filed, not the time at which the Government moves to dismiss the action.
When this court decided UNR, we chose “to revisit the jurisprudence encumbering this statute.” Id., 962 F.2d at 1021. In so doing, we declared “overruled” a number of cases, including Casman. UNR, 962 F.2d at 1022 n. 3. The Supreme Court took exception to our efforts. “Because the issue is not presented on the facts of this case, we need not decide whether two actions based on the same operative facts, but seeking completely [1549]*1549different relief, would implicate § 1500.” UNR/Keene, — U.S. at — n. 6, 113 S.Ct. at 2043 n. 6 (citing Casman and a similar ease, Boston Five Cents Savings Bank, FSB v. United States, 864 F.2d 137 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Boston Five)). At a later point in its UNR/ Keene opinion the Supreme Court said: “In applying § 1500 to the facts of this case, we find it unnecessary to consider, much less repudiate, the ‘judicially created exceptions’ to § 1500 found in Tecon Engineers, Casman, and Boston Five." UNR/Keene, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2044 (quoting from and citing to this court’s UNR opinion.)10
As the Supreme Court has reminded us, anything we said in UNR regarding the legal import of cases whose factual bases were not properly before us was mere dictum, and therefore we will not accord it stare decisis effect. The Government can draw no comfort in this case from the holding of UNR, as affirmed in UNR/Keene. The issue the Government raises, and which is now properly before us on the facts of this case, is whether § 1500 denies jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims if, at the time a complaint for money damages is filed, there is a pending action in another court that seeks distinctly different relief. Our precedent, Casman and cases like it, tells us the answer is no. As we are unwilling to give stare decisis effect to a matter that we did not fully consider and that was not before us in the prior case, we do not consider today’s case as a ‘resurrection’ of Casman (see dissent, Op. at 1557), but as an opportunity for the Government to persuade us why we should abandon Casman.
II.
The precise issue in this case is the meaning of the term “claims” as it is used in § 1500, which states that the Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction “of any claims for or in respect to which the plaintiff ... has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States ...” (Emphasis added.) Specifically, the question is whether the “claims” which Loveladies brought to the Court of Federal Claims are the same as the “claims” which Loveladies had already sued upon in the district court. If the claims are the same, the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims over the same claims, still pending before the district court when the second suit was filed, was barred by § 1500. If the claims are distinctly different, Loveladies are excused from the jurisdictional dance required by § 1500.
Deciding if the claims are the same or distinctly different “requires a comparison between the claims raised in the Court of Federal Claims and in the other lawsuit.” UNR/Keene, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2041. It also requires a definition of “claims” that the statute does not provide. As the Supreme Court put it, “The exact nature of the things to be compared is not illuminated, however, by the awkward formulation of § 1500.” Id.
The legislative history of § 1500 is fairly straightforward, and was ably recounted in this court’s opinion in UNR, 962 F.2d at 1017-19, and more briefly by the Supreme Court in UNR/Keene, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2039-40. See also David Schwartz, Section 1500 of the Judicial Code and Duplicate Suits Against the Government and Its Agents, 55 Geo.L.J. 573, 574-80 (1967). Like the statute, the legislative history does not teach how to identify claims that are the same for the purposes of § 1500.
The meaning and scope of the term, then, has been left to caselaw development. This court recently reviewed the question in Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066, 109 S.Ct. 1342, 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) (Johns-Manville). We reaffirmed the rule that it is ‘operative facts’ and not legal theories by which claims may be distinguished under § 1500 when the same relief-money damages — is sought.11 Johns-Man-[1550]*1550ville filed indemnification claims in district courts against the Government, based on amounts it had paid for defense and settlement of suits for injuries allegedly due to exposure to asbestos products it had sold to the Government.12 Jurisdiction in the district court was based on the Federal Tort Claims Act. While these suits were pending, Johns-Manville filed three suits in the Court of Federal Claims seeking indemnification from the Government for essentially the same losses, but this time on claims of breach of implied warranty, duty to reveal superior knowledge, and mutual mistake — all contract based claims.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed plaintiffs suit pursuant to § 1500. We affirmed, holding that “Claims are the same where they arise from the same operative facts even if the operative facts support different legal theories which cannot all be brought in one court.” Johns-Manville, 855 F.2d at 1567. The court distinguished the situation before it, one in which the relief sought from both courts is money but under different legal theories, from one in which “a different type of relief is sought in the district court (equitable) from that sought in the Court of Claims (money).” Id. at 1566 (citing Casman). As the court observed, “the legislative history and the cases indicate section 1500 was enacted for the benefit of the government and was intended to force an election where both forums could grant the same relief, arising from the same operative facts.” Johns-Manville, 855 F.2d at 1564.
Viewing claims as related to the nature of the relief sought is unremarkable.13 And using differing relief as a characteristic for distinguishing claims was especially appropriate here, because the Court of Federal Claims and its predecessors have been courts with limited authority to grant relief. These courts could not grant the kinds of general equitable relief the district courts could, even in cases over which they otherwise have had subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the powers of the Court of Federal Claims have been increased in recent years, so that in some instances it can grant complete relief in cases over which it has subject matter jurisdiction, the Court of Federal Claims remains a court with limited remedial powers.14
The Casman ease cited in Johns-Manville arose when a government employee sued in district court for reinstatement to his position with the Government, and while that suit was pending, sued in the Court of Claims for back pay denied him as a result of the allegedly unlawful removal.15 When the Government moved to dismiss under § 1500 the monetary claim in the Court of Claims, that court denied the motion. The court held that the two suits alleged different “claims”— although the two suits involved the same conflict between the same parties, the claims were distinguished by the different form of relief each sought.16
This court and its predecessor, although sometimes referring to the Casman rule as an “exception” to § 1500, see, e.g., Johns-Manville at 1566, have consistently applied this principle to distinguish claims. See, e.g. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 684, 1980 WL 13153 (1980); Boston Five, 864 F.2d 137 (Fed.Cir. [1551]*15511988). See also Deltona Corp. v. United States, 657 F.2d 1184, 228 Ct.Cl. 476 (1981) (takings claim was filed and prosecuted in Court of Claims during the pendency of a challenge in district court to the validity of the Corps’ denial of a dredge and fill permit; the issue of whether jurisdiction was barred by § 1500 was not addressed); Webb v. United States, 19 Cl.Ct. 650 (1990) (relief used to distinguish a claim presented to the then Claims Court from a claim in district court).
The description of the Casman rule as an “exception” to § 1500 is inapt. Courts cannot create exceptions to jurisdictional grants not expressed in the statute. Corona Coal Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 537, 44 S.Ct. 156, 68 L.Ed. 431 (1924). Casman and its progeny reflect a carefully considered interpretation of the statutory term “claims,” a term undefined in the statute and subject to conflicting views as to its meaning.
Similarly, the “operative facts” rule applied in Johns-Manville was an interpretation of the term “claims,” and was consistent with the Court of Claims decision in British American, which had held that two claims were not necessarily different simply because they were based on different legal theories. In British American, the plaintiff, acting under federal regulations and executive orders, surrendered gold bullion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The plaintiff brought suit against the Government in district court under a tort theory, and in the Court of Claims under a contractual theory. In both courts plaintiff sought a money judgment. The Court of Claims held that § 1500 barred the claim before it. It made no difference that the two suits were based upon different legal theories; the plaintiff had only one claim for money based on the same set of facts.
Courts have also long followed the principle of British American.17 See e.g. Los An-geles Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. United States, 152 F.Supp. 236, 138 Ct.Cl. 648 (1957); Hill v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 382 (1985); Bennally v. United States, 14 Cl.Ct. 8 (1987); Johns-Manville, 855 F.2d 1556 (Fed.Cir.1988); UNR, 962 F.2d 1013 (Fed.Cir.1992); UNR/Keene, — U.S. —, —, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 2043, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993) (“The decision in British American Tobacco strikes us, moreover, as a sensible reading of the statute ...”).
Thus we have consistently tested claims against both the principle established in Casman and that established in British American. Taken together, these tests produce a working definition of “claims” for the purpose of applying § 1500. For the Court of Federal Claims to be precluded from hearing a claim under § 1500, the claim pending in another court must arise from the same operative facts, and must seek the same relief. We know of no case arising from the same operative facts in which § 1500 has been held to bar jurisdiction over a claim praying for relief distinctly different from that sought in a pending proceeding.18
III.
The Government presents several arguments why this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Government argues first that Loveladies’ APA challenge to the validity of the permit denial filed in district court, and their suit in the Court of Federal Claims for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, are in reality one claim, arising from the same operative facts, and that under the law that alone is enough to bar jurisdiction under § 1500. As our precedents establish, and as we explained above, a showing that the two claims arose from the same ‘operative facts’ is necessary, but not sufficient, to preclude the Court of Federal Claims from hearing a case. To [1552]*1552come within the proscription of § 1500, the claims must also seek the same relief. Each of Loveladies’ two suits prays for distinctly different relief. The Government’s argument that § 1500 precludes the Court of Federal Claims from hearing Loveladies’ takings claim on the ground of operative facts alone is, under the law, without merit.19
The Government then argues that we should overturn longstanding precedent and adopt new law, a new definition of “claims.” The Government argues that it should be enough to preclude the Court of Federal Claims from hearing a claim if another claim, arising from the same operative facts, is pending in another court, regardless of the type of relief sought. Under this theory, if we accept, as we have done arguendo, that Loveladies’ two suits arise from the same operative facts,20 then § 1500 denies jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims. The Government makes essentially two arguments in support of a new understanding of § 1500.
First, the Government reads Corona Coal Co. v. United States, 263 U.S. 537, 44 S.Ct. 156, 68 L.Ed. 431 (1924), to hold “the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the concept that Section 154 [the predecessor of § 1500] should be made subject to a hardship exception.” True enough, and irrelevant. In Corona Coal, the petitioner argued that even though there was a pending suit in district court seeking the same relief based on the same facts as those in the Court of Claims suit, the statutory bar should not apply because the imminent running of the statute of limitations forced petitioner to file. The Supreme Court responded: “But the words of the statute are plain, with nothing in the context to make their meaning doubtful; no room is left for construction, and we are not at liberty to add an exception in order to remove apparent hardship in particular cases.” Id. at 540, 44 S.Ct. at 156.
The case before us is not a matter in which a court-created exception to an otherwise plain piece of legislation is at issue. As we noted earlier, Casman did not create an “exception” to the rule of § 1500, any more than British American did. In each case, this court or its predecessor was called upon to specify the meaning of an ill-defined and multivalent term, “claims,” in a particular factual context. Casman and British American establish two applicable principles — (i) identity of relief requested, and (ii) identity of operative facts — with which to test the identity of claims. As we have seen, this court has consistently adhered to those principles.
The Government’s second argument for adopting its understanding of § 1500 is that, if we do not adopt the Government’s view, we will return the law to the confused state it was in before our opinion in UNR, the opinion in which, the Government claims, we eliminated much prior case law interpreting § 1500 and thereby rectified the jurisprudence surrounding the statute. There are three problems with this argument. First, as discussed above, our .opinion in UNR did not make all the supposedly crooked ways surrounding § 1500 straight. The common law does not work like that; that is its genius. See South Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368, 1371 (Fed.Cir.1982) (“resolution of conflict, a major element in this court’s mission, requires not a one-shot selection but a careful, considered, cautious, and contemplative approach.”).
Second, the Government introduces no evidence of the alleged confusion presumably surrounding § 1500. We have not been shown the existence of a serious shortcoming in the ease law causing irremediable difficulty for litigants. The principles of Casman and British American are not that difficult to comprehend or apply. Third, whatever residue of confusion may exist in the Government’s mind on this issue, or in the minds of others, our opinion today should dispel.
The Government finally argues that, even if § 1500 does not bar the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims when different relief [1553]*1553is sought, Loveladies in fact was not seeking relief different from that sought in the district court. The Government bases this argument on a comparison of the complaints filed in those courts. The pleadings are in some respects similar (apparently parts were copied one from the other), and both ask the court to “declare” certain conclusions. Therefore, argues the Government, this case is different from Casman in that Loveladies sought the same declaratory relief in both courts. The dissent agrees with the Government. We do not.
The district court complaint alleges jurisdiction under both the Fifth Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and under § 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. § 1344), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 554), and the general grant to the district courts of jurisdiction over federal questions, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. After reciting allegations as to all counts, the complaint sets forth eight numbered counts. The gravamen of the First Count is the allegation that “defendant has violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by taking plaintiffs’ private property for public use without compensation.” The remaining counts allege various wrongs in the regulatory authority and practices of the Corps as they relate to the Loveladies case. The complaint closes with a prayer that asks the court for relief, including:
2. Declaring that the action of the defendant in denying the permit application of plaintiffs constitutes a taking of property in violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution;
4. Declaring that the regulations relied upon ... are unconstitutional [as beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause];
5. Declaring that the regulations relied upon ... are ultra vires ...
and concludes with the usual “granting such other relief ...” prayer.
The complaint in the Court of Claims is similar, but shorter. The jurisdictional allegations are limited to the Fifth Amendment, and to § 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act21 and 28 U.S.C. § 1494, the Tucker Act. There are only two counts. The first is a repeat, somewhat expanded, of the first count of the district court complaint. The second count repeats some of the allegations about the arbitrary nature of the Corps’ decision. The prayer again, inter alia, includes a request for relief that the court declare that the action of the defendant in denying the permit application of plaintiffs constitutes a taking of property in violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It is important to note that the prayer in the Court of Claims complaint contained an express request for damages. Significantly, that request was missing from the complaint in the district court. Furthermore, despite asking that the court ‘declare’ relief, neither complaint, in the jurisdictional allegations or elsewhere, refers or cites to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Nor has the Government pointed to anything that suggests the proceedings were conducted under that Act, or in accordance with the rules that govern such proceedings.22 In each suit, the full relief requested could have been granted by, in the case of the district court suit, a mandatory injunction, and in the case of the Court of Federal Claims suit, a decree for money damages, without either court “declaring” anything. The use of the term “declaring” in the prayers for relief was clearly intended to convey a request different from a formal declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The Government further argues that the presence of an allegation of a taking in the two complaints means that the claims in the district court suit were the same claims as those in the Court of Federal Claims suit, since Loveladies sought in the district court a [1554]*1554declaration of taking and thus implicitly the monetary relief that would accompany the declaration.23 But the Government itself destroyed the core of that argument in its answer to that complaint. In the district court, the Government stated as its First Separate Defense: “This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint’s allegations of a taking of property.” The district court agreed with the Government’s view that Count I was without legal significance as far as a taking and compensation under the Fifth Amendment were concerned. While granting judgment in favor of the Government on all other counts, that court dismissed Count I without prejudice to the rights of plaintiffs to pursue the takings allegations in the Court of Federal Claims.24 The prayer for a “declaration” of a taking, for which the First Count was the predicate, thus was equally without legal significance.
By contrast, in the complaint in the Court of Federal Claims Loveladies clearly •alleged that a taking had occurred, and that just compensation was due them. As we have often noted, the Tucker Act, which was cited by Loveladies as their jurisdictional base, provides jurisdiction for damage suits against the United States Government, but a recovery against the Government requires a substantive right created by some money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been violated, or an express or implied contract with the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 885 (Fed.Cir.1983) (in banc), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1065, 104 S.Ct. 1414, 79 L.Ed.2d 740 (1984). That Loveladies sought a clear finding or “declaration” of their rights under the Fifth Amendment as the money-mandating source of their entitlement to recovery seems hardly surprising.
In sum, reading the two complaints in light of the legal and factual circumstances in which they were drawn leaves little doubt what was intended by the prayers for relief contained in them. At the time Loveladies filed their complaint in the district court seeking invalidation of the Government’s action, they may not have foreseen the possible complications that might arise if they later sought monetary relief in the Court of Federal Claims. If they had, perhaps they might have framed their pleadings with more precision. Be that as it may, the claims in the two courts are for distinctly different and not the same or even overlapping relief — this case presents the straightforward issue of plaintiffs “who seek distinctly different types of relief in the two courts.” UNR/Keene, — U.S. at —-—, 113 S.Ct. at 2044-45.25
IV.
The result we reach on the Government’s motion is further supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. United States, 363 U.S. 202, 80 S.Ct. 1131, 4 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1960). In that case the Supreme Court confronted the basic issue here: the interplay of two legally recognized and protected rights, which, because of the statutory jurisdictional structure, are thrown into apparent conflict. The problem arose there, as it does here, when a federal government agency exercised its regulatory power in a manner that raises questions both of the validity of the exercise and, if valid, the economic consequences of the exercise.
In Pennsylvania Railroad, war conditions had prevented the Government’s planned ex[1555]*1555portation of certain raw materials to Great Britain. The Pennsylvania Railroad charged the Government the higher ‘domestic’ rate for transport of the materials (the railroad charged less for transport of goods for export). The Government paid the higher domestic rate, but then set-off the amount of the price difference from other obligations it owed to the railroad. The railroad brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover the amount so deducted. Id. at 203, 80 S.Ct. at 1132.
The Court of Claims proceedings initially were suspended while the railroad and the Government disputed before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the correctness under governing regulations of the rates, an issue which was under ICC jurisdiction. The railroad disagreed with part of the ICC’s determination, and appealed to the District Court as the statute provided, seeking to set aside the ICC order. Plaintiff railroad requested that the Court of Claims continue to stay its proceedings pending the District Court ruling on the validity of the ICC determination. The Court of Claims declined to do so. Id. at 203-04, 80 S.Ct. at 1132-33.26
The Supreme Court held that this was error:
[Jjurisdiction [to review the ICC determination] is vested exclusively in the District Courts.... It necessarily follows, of course, that since the Railroad had a right to have the Commission’s order reviewed, and only the District Court had the jurisdiction to review it, the Court of Claims was under a duty to stay its proceedings pending this review.
Id. at 205-06, 80 S.Ct. at 1133 (emphasis added).
The plaintiff in Pennsylvania Railroad had a right to have the Commission’s order reviewed because it determined certain rights and obligations which had significant legal consequences for its dispute with the Government. Plaintiffs such as Loveladies, too, have a right to have the Corps’ permit denial reviewed, without being placed in the position of having to give up a substantial legal right protected by the Takings Clause of the Constitution. See also Aulston v. United States, 823 F.2d 510, 514 (Fed.Cir.1987) (Claims Court ordered to “hold appellants’ taking claim -on its docket in suspension for such time as is reasonably necessary for appellants to challenge the [agency] decision in a district court, and if successful there, to return promptly to the Claims Court.”).
The plaintiff in Pennsylvania Railroad, after filing in the Claims Court, was confronted with the necessity of litigating the regulatory issue in another court. In the case before us, plaintiffs filed the APA action in the district court first, and then filed the takings claim in the Court of Federal Claims. In a takings case this is entirely logical — if the validity of the regulatory imposition is to be challenged, it makes sense to pursue the validity question first so as to determine the necessity for prosecuting the takings claim. The risk of course is that too long a time may be required for initiation of a suit, discovery and other pretrial activities, and decisions at both trial and appellate levels. It may not always be possible because of the statute of limitations for a plaintiff to wait for the regulatory challenge case to be finally concluded before filing in the Court of Federal Claims.27
Litigation can serve public interests as well as the particular interests of the parties. The nation is served by private litigation which accomplishes public ends, for example, by checking the power of the Government through suits brought under the APA or under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because this nation relies in signifi[1556]*1556cant degree on litigation to control the excesses to which Government may from time to time be prone, it would not be sound policy to force plaintiffs to forego monetary claims in order to challenge the validity of Government action, or to preclude challenges to the validity of Government action in order to protect a Constitutional claim for compensation. Section 1500 was enacted to preclude duplicate cotton claims — claims for money damages — at a time when res judicata principles did not provide the Government with protection against such “duplicative lawsuits.” UNR/Keene, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2039. Whatever viability remains in § 1500, absent a clear expression of Congressional intent we ought not extend the statute to allow the Government to foreclose non-duplicative suits, and to deny remedies the Constitution and statutes otherwise provide.
CONCLUSION
The motion of the Government that the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims be vacated and the complaint dismissed is denied. The case is returned to the panel for decision on the merits.
MOTION DENIED.