In the case of Westfall et al. v. Erwin et ux., 1987, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether federal employees were entitled to absolute immunity from state law tort claims for actions taken within their official capacity. The court held that federal officials do not possess absolute immunity but rather qualified immunity which protects them only if their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. In this particular case, two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees had been sued by a couple alleging negligence in handling hazardous waste materials that resulted in injury and property damage. The lower courts granted summary judgment based on absolute immunity, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that these EPA officials could be liable if they acted negligently within their discretionary functions.

In the dissenting opinion for Westfall et al. v. Erwin et ux., Justice Scalia argued that federal employees should be immune from state tort liability when performing discretionary functions within their official capacity, regardless of whether they acted negligently or in bad faith. He contended that this immunity is necessary to prevent hindrance of government operations and protect public servants from personal financial ruin due to mistakes made while carrying out their duties. Furthermore, he believed it was not the Court's role to decide on such a complex issue with significant policy implications; rather, Congress should make this determination through legislation after careful consideration and debate.