With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 223, 230 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc) (per curiam). 3 . The Tucker Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Claims Court over all claims against the government seeking monetary relief in excess of $10,000, if the claim is brought pursuant to an express or implied contract, or if a non-contractual claim is brought pursuant to a statutory or substantive constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988). Non-contractual claims must be based on statutory or constitutional rights that mandate the payment of money damages. The Federal Circuit has held that a person like Hubbard would be barred from bringing a claim under the Tucker Act because the First Amendment, by its terms, does not mandate the payment of money. United States v. Connolly, 716 F.2d 882, 887 (Fed.Cir.1983) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1065, 104 S.Ct. 1414,

A: holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal
B: holding that claims court does not have jurisdiction over wrongful termination claim of probationary civil servant fired for exercising his first amendment freedoms
C: holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief
D: holding that the united states court of federal claims does not have jurisdiction over a new claim or a claim of different scope that was not previously presented and certified to the contracting officer for decision
B.