Carter v. United States (No. 23-1281)
Summary
The document is a dissent from a denial of certiorari in the case of Carter v. United States. Justice Thomas argues that the Supreme Court should revisit the Feres doctrine, a judicially created exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Feres doctrine currently bars service members from suing the government for injuries incident to military service.
Justice Thomas contends that the Feres doctrine has no basis in the text of the FTCA and is poorly justified as a matter of policy. He highlights the inconsistencies and criticisms surrounding the doctrine's application in lower courts.
Ultimately, Justice Thomas advocates for overruling or at least limiting the Feres doctrine to allow injured service members a remedy under the FTCA.
Expected Effects
If the Supreme Court were to overrule or limit the Feres doctrine, service members would have the ability to sue the government for certain injuries sustained during their service. This would create a pathway for legal recourse currently unavailable to them under the existing interpretation of the FTCA.
This change could lead to increased litigation against the government related to military medical malpractice and other service-related injuries. The exact scope of the change and its impact would depend on how the Court chooses to modify or eliminate the Feres doctrine.
It could also incentivize the military to improve safety and healthcare standards to mitigate potential liability.
Potential Benefits
- Provides a potential avenue for legal recourse for service members injured due to government negligence.
- Could lead to improved healthcare and safety standards within the military.
- Aligns the legal rights of service members more closely with those of civilians under the FTCA.
- Corrects a judicially created doctrine that lacks statutory basis, reinforcing the principle of separation of powers.
- May offer more equitable compensation to injured service members compared to the current Veterans' Benefits system.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could lead to increased litigation against the government, potentially burdening the court system.
- May increase financial costs for the government due to legal settlements and judgments.
- Could potentially involve civilian courts in sensitive military affairs, impacting military discipline and decision-making.
- May create uncertainty and inconsistency in the application of tort law to military activities.
- Could incentivize frivolous lawsuits, further burdening the legal system.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The Feres doctrine, as Justice Thomas argues, is a judicially created exception to the FTCA, which itself is an exercise of Congress's power to waive sovereign immunity. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws, including those that define the extent to which the government can be sued.
By creating an exception not explicitly found in the statute, the Feres doctrine arguably infringes upon Congress's legislative authority (Article I, Section 8). Overruling Feres and adhering to the text of the FTCA would arguably restore the balance of power intended by the Constitution.
However, the Constitution also vests the judiciary with the power to interpret laws, and the Feres doctrine could be viewed as an interpretation of the FTCA in light of broader principles of sovereign immunity and military affairs. The debate centers on the extent to which the judiciary can create exceptions to statutes based on policy considerations.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).