Term: 2020
Docket: 19-546
Brownback v. King
- Pro
19-546 BROWNBACK V. KING DECISION BELOW: 917 F.3d 409 CERT. GRANTED 3/30/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and creates a cause of action for damages for certain torts committed by federal employees "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The FTCA also imposes a judgment bar, which provides that "[t]he judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." 28 U.S.C. 2676. The question presented is whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under Section 1346(b)(1), on the ground that a private person would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law for the injuries alleged, bars a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that is brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to the claimant's FTCA claim. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-2101
In the case of Brownback v. King, James King filed a lawsuit against Todd Allen and Douglas Brownback, two federal officers who had mistaken him for a fugitive during an investigation conducted by a joint task force of federal and state officials. The officers used excessive force to detain King which led to his hospitalization. After being acquitted in criminal court, he sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens decision for constitutional violations. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the officers stating that because King's FTCA claim was judged on its merits - even though it failed - it barred any further claims under Bivens due to judgment bar provision within FTCA itself which prevents litigants from pursuing similar lawsuits arising from same incidents or facts.
In the dissenting opinion for Brownback v. King, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) was overly broad and could potentially bar a significant number of valid constitutional claims from being heard in court. She contended that this ruling would allow federal officers to violate individuals' rights without fear of legal repercussions. According to her, the FTCA judgment bar should only apply if there is a final judgement on an action against United States itself, not just any claim filed under FTCA as interpreted by majority justices. She also expressed concern about how this decision might affect future cases involving law enforcement misconduct or abuse.
