See Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459, . And whenthe two men caught up with him and beat him mercilessly, James fought for his life to escape before they choked him unconscious. King appealed only the dismissal of his Bivens claims. This, even though state torts and constitutional claims have different elements and are designed to remedy different rights. The district court found that King failed to prove one of the six requirements for FTCA to apply, and therefore that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear King's claim against the United States. Justin Pulliam, a citizen journalist in Texas, was arrested and prosecuted for his reporting on the activities of the Fort Bend County Sheriff. Brownback contends that allowing the Bivens action to proceed would weaken the judgment bar and strain resources by enabling a future plaintiff to pursue a Bivens claim and then relitigate the same facts in a separate FTCA action if the Bivens claim fails. See ante, at 5, n.4. Id. 510. In addition, Congress passed private bills that awarded compensation to persons injured by Government employees. The court also granted qualified immunity to the officers against the Bivens claims brought by King. Brownback Case Is NOT Over: What Happened Yesterday in the Police Brutality Case and What Happens Next, Supreme Court Orders Appeals Court To Take Second Look at Case of Man Assaulted by Law Enforcement Officers, Members of Congress, Scholars & Advocates Urge High Court Not to Create Loophole for Government Officials Seeking to Escape Accountability. The court dismissed Kings Bivens claims as well, ruling that the defendants were entitled to federal qualified immunity. 57. See Restatement of Judgments 49, Comment b, at 195196. Here, the District Court entered a Judgment . We leave it to the Sixth Circuit to address Kings alternative arguments on remand. Id. The underlying facts of Brownback v. King are straightforward. Allen and Brownback approached and questioned James King after deciding that Kings appearance and habits suggested there was a good possibility that he was the suspect in question. The officers thus would have been entitled to state qualified immunity had Michigan tort claims been brought against them. First Column. Had Congress intended to give both provisions the same effect, it presumably would have done so expressly. Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. at 420. Solicitor General) appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and asserted an argument that would. Or both. In the alternative, they moved for summary judgment. A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday issued a limited ruling on the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar. Generally, a court may not issue a ruling on the merits when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, see Steel Co., 523 U.S., at 101102, but where, as here, pleading a claim and pleading jurisdiction entirely overlap, a ruling that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may simultaneously be a judgment on the merits that can trigger the judgment bar. at 25. The officers were looking for a non-violent, local fugitive wanted for the petty crime of stealing a box of empty soda cans and several bottles of liquor from his former boss apartment. Worse still, Kent County, Michigan, prosecutors refused to drop the charges. In turn, the Department of Justice filed a cert petition urging the Supreme Court to block Kings claims under Bivens. King also contended that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the officers because there remained material facts in dispute relating to the application of qualified immunity. Circuit Court of Appeals denied them. Pfander & Aggarwal, Bivens, the Judgment Bar, and the Perils of Dynamic Textualism, 8 U. St.Thomas L.J. See Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459, 473474, 760 N.W. 2d 217, 224225 (2008). The criminal justice system immediately closed ranks to shield the officers from accountability for their actions. Before the Act was passed, a person injured by a federal employee's act (or omission) could sue the individual federal employee directly. at 32. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510511. Pfander, 8 U. St.Thomas L.J., at 425. Second, if Kings FTCA claims were dismissed on the merits, the Justice Department argued that this dismissal triggered the FTCAs judgment bar, which blocks plaintiffs from filing future lawsuits involving the same subject matter. Finally, and most significantly, the Department argued that if Kings FTCA claims triggered the judgment bar, his Bivens claims should be dismissed as well. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Reply Brief for Petitioner at 18. at 33. WORLD Radio - Legal Docket: Brownback v King - S2.E1. Here, however, in the unique context of the FTCA, all elements of a meritorious claim are also jurisdictional. King v. Brownback Taking on The Shell Games That Allow Federal/State Task Force Members To Violate Your Rights In 2020, Brownback v. King became the first case in IJ's Project on Immunity and Accountability argued before the United States Supreme Court. Greetings, Court Fans! IJ is in court nationwide defending individual liberty. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998). The court then explained that Michigan law provides qualified immunity for Government employees who commit intentional torts but act in subjective good faith. Id. Members of Congress argue that applying the judgment bar in this case would actually increase duplicative litigation, since plaintiffs could avoid the risk that a ruling on their FTCA claims might bar their Bivens claims by simply litigating their Bivens claim first before proceeding with their FTCA claims. Regardless, the FTCA judgment in this case is an on the merits decision that passes on the substance of Kings FTCA claims under the 1946 meaning or present day meaning of those terms. See 28 U.S.C. 1346(b). But instead, the government (specifically, the U.S. at 2223. The FBI, for example. Office of the Solicitor General (202) 514-2203. . As the Court points out, we are a court of review, not of first view. Ante, at 5, n.4 (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n.7 (2005)). Responding to James desperate pleas for help, bystanders called the police stating that. (10) As a result, the intent of Congress in passing section 1983 has been frustrated, and the rights secured by the Constitution of the United States . Id. . To vindicate his rights, King then filed a lawsuit against the federal government, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), and against the individual officers under Bivens, a 1971 Supreme Court case that lets individuals sue federal agents for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. In further support, the Cato Institute and the National Police Accountability Project (collectively Cato) contend that Congress intended to provide plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue FTCA and Bivens claims simultaneously. Brownback argues that under the FTCA, where immunity and the cause of action overlap, the district court must necessarily consider the merits of the case while determining its own jurisdiction. . Now, IJ is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and deny the government one of its many tools to avoid the Constitution. at 43233. We granted certiorari, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), and nowreverse. at 420. King further contends that Section 2676s judgment bar also does not apply to claims brought together in the same lawsuit. Does a judgment in favor of the United States on state law tort claims brought under Section 1346(b)(1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act necessarily preclude a plaintiff from seeking recourse under Bivens for a civil rights violation stemming from the same underlying factual allegations? . at 12, 15. See Odom, 482 Mich., at 461, 481482, 760 N.W. 2d, at 218, 229. [O]ver the years the meaning of the term judgment on the merits has gradually undergone change and now encompasses some judgments that do not pass upon the substantive merits of a claim and hence do not (in many jurisdictions) entail claim-preclusive effect. Semtek, 531 U.S., at 502. Brownback argued that a finding on the merits had triggered the FTCAs judgment bar and precluded Kings constitutional claims against him. King argues that since no such jurisdiction exists over the claims in this case, his Bivens action should not be barred. To take one example of how rapidly the use of task forces has expanded, the FBI and NYPD formed their first terrorism joint task force in 1979. Ibid. King refused to take a plea deal and was ultimately acquitted by a jury on all charges. It concerns the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a statute that waives the United States' sovereign immunity for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. IJ fights for the right to speak freely about the issues that matter most to ordinary people and to defend the free flow of information essential to democratic government and free enterprise. IJ is dedicated to fighting judge-made rules that make it extremely difficult to hold government officials accountable for violating the Constitution. . 19546. Unlike the judgment bar, 2672 uses unambiguous language (release of any claim) to ensure that settlements with the United States both preclude future litigation and resolve pending claims against federal employees. In 1946, Congress passed the FTCA, which waived the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. In 2014, college student James King is beaten up by FBI agents who had the wrong guy. King pursued only the constitutional claims on appeal, but the government, representing the officers, asserted that those claims were . Task forces are charged with policing everything from narcotics to car thefts. King appealed only the dismissal of his Bivens claims. See id. King sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging that the officers committed six torts under Michigan law. Instead, the high court asked the Sixth Circuit to decide the issue first. at 26. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89. Id. A claim is actionable if it alleges the six elements of 1346(b), which are that the claim be: [1] against the United States, [2] for money damages, . James sought justice by filing a federal lawsuit against the officers and the federal government. On the text, petitioners point out that it would be strange to refer to the entire lawsuit as an action under section 1346(b) even after the Court has decided all the claims brought under the FTCA. Individual demands for relief within a lawsuit, by contrast, are claims. See Blacks Law Dictionary, at 311 (2019) (defining a claim as the part of a complaint in a civil action specifying what relief the plaintiff asks for); Blacks Law Dictionary, at 333 (1933) (defining a claim as any demand held or asserted as of right or cause ofaction). Brief for the Respondent at 1, Brownback v. King, No. The FTCA streamlined litigation for parties injured by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Id. Virtually unknown for much of American history, these task forces have become commonplace. To take one example of how rapidly the use of task forces has expanded, the FBI and NYPD formed their first terrorism joint task force in 1979. Brownback petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari on October 25, 2019, which the Supreme Court granted on March 20, 2020. at 19. The Supreme Court heard the case but, at IJs urging, refused to recognize the new immunity requested by the government. In the ruling of Brownback v. King, Judge Clarence Thomas wrote the two federal agents were entitled to legal immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946. See Pfander, 8 U. St.Thomas. Whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under Section 1346(b)(1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 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 that is brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to the claimants FTCA claim. Before the case could proceed to a jury, however, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to take the case and recognize an immunity under a statute called the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Id. The case, Brownback v. King, arose out of a 2014 incident where an FBI agent and police detective choked and beat a Michigan man, James King, whom they mistook for a fugitive. IJ argues that if citizens must follow the law, the government must follow the Constitution. Id. After the trial court initially granted the officers qualified immunity, the federal appeals court reversed that ruling, which normally would have sent the case back to the trial court, where James would at last have an opportunity to present his case and ask a jury to hold these officers to account. at 2223. Another provision, known as the judgment bar, provides that [t]he judgment in an action under section 1346(b) shall bar any action by the claimant involving the same subject matter against the federal employee whose act gave rise to the claim. See Sterling v. United States, 85 F.3d 1225, 12281229 (CA7 1996) (holding that judgment in a prior direct action did not preclude a later FTCA suit against the United States).2. In support of this argument, King points to the Courts decisions in Simmons v. Himmelreich and Will v. Hallock, both of which concluded that the judgment bar operates like res judicata, in that it is only when a court with jurisdiction under the FTCA issues a ruling on the merits that federal employees are protected from repeat litigation. A number of members of Congress, scholars, and advocates urged the High Court not to create a loophole for government officials seeking to escape accountability. at 21, 31. Torts (FTCA, Bivens Actions, section 1983, Qualified Immunity) Briefs: 19-546_brownback_v._king_reply_pet.pdf. were going to kill him if he didnt get help immediately. NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. 9 The District Court did not have the power to issue its summary judgment ruling because that decision was not necessary for the court to determine its own jurisdiction. Ruiz, 536 U.S., at 628. When uniformed officers arrived on the scene, one went aroundforcing witnesses to delete evidence. at 25. They urge further that claims in the same suit should be among the covered actions because the bar precludes any action, rather than subsequent actions, which is the typical formulation of claim preclusion. Brownback asserts that Congress offered plaintiffs a choice in pursuing remedies against the United States, or against individual federal employees, or both. Brownback contends that applying the judgment bar in this case aligns with Congresss goal of avoiding the burden of duplicative litigation and lessening unnecessary burdens on federal resources. Specifically, King concludes that since res judicata only bars a claim made in a separate lawsuit, Section 2676s judgment bar does not apply to multiple claims that were made in the same lawsuit. Arbaugh, 546 U.S., at 506507. in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. ECF Doc. But by the 1940s, Congress was considering hundreds of such private bills each year. Unaccountable task forces have quietly expanded across the country. In most cases, a plaintiffs failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) does not deprive a federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court did lack subject-matter jurisdiction over Kings FTCA claims. The court, following its own precedent, ruled that the Government was immune because it retains the benefit of state-law immunities available to its employees. Rather than seriously engaging with the issue, as the Supreme Court asked, the Sixth Circuit unthinkingly applied outdated caselaw, becoming the sixth federal appeals court to do so. Petitioners interpretation, by contrast, appears inefficient. Importantly, the Court does not today decide whether an order resolving the merits of an FTCA claim precludes other claims arising out of the same subject matter in the same suit. Sign up to receive IJ's biweekly digital magazine, Liberty & Law, along with breaking updates about our fight to protect the rights of all Americans. 2 Like the Sixth Circuit, we construe the District Courts primary ruling on the FTCA claims as a grant of summary judgment for the defendants because its ruling relied on the parties Joint Statement of Facts . (a)Similar to common-law claim preclusion, the judgment bar requires a final judgment on the merits, Semtek Intl Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 502. This Court has explained that the judgment bar was drafted against the backdrop doctrine of res judicata. In Brownback, the district court granted summary judgment to the United States on the FTCA claims, finding that the officers would have been entitled to qualified immunity under Michigan state law for the tort claims alleged against them and that this immunity extended to the federal government for its employees' actions. The case, Brownback v. King, began in 2014, when officers working with an FBI task force in Grand Rapids, Michigan, tackled, choked and punched college student James King in the head after mistaking him for a fugitive. IJ files cutting-edge constitutional cases in state and federal courts to defend the rights of our clients and set legal precedent that protects countless others like them. See Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., 590 U.S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 6). The case, Brownback v. King, which will be argued on Monday, asks the Supreme Court to decide the scope of the FTCA's judgment bar. Id. Brownback contends that establishing this choice, along with its ramifications of barring actions against individual federal employees, follows directly from the judgment bars function of barring claims against federal employees after an FTCA judgment in favor of the United States. . Ibid. Like James, bystanders did not know that the men beating him were with law enforcement officers. Solicitor General) appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and asserted an argument that wouldcreate an enormous new loopholethrough which government officials can escape accountability when they violate someones constitutional rights. As James would only later discover, his muggers were actually a local police detective and an FBI agent working as part of a joint state-federal task force. , and that number is growing. LII note: the oral arguments in Brownback v. King are now available from Oyez. The court noted that one element of an FTCA claim is that the plaintiff establish that the Government employee would be liable under state law. She will discuss Bivens doctrine, qualified immunity, and how joint state and federal task forces allow local officials to gain the same immunities as federal officials. The officers thus would have been entitled to state qualified immunity had Michigan tort claims been brought against them. King sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging that the officers committed six torts under Michigan law. Unprovoked, Allen and Brownback tackled King, put him in a chokehold, and beat him so violently, King was briefly unconscious and later had to be hospitalized. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in a concurrence, the clash of interpretations over the FTCAs judgment bar merits far closer consideration than it has thus far received. Adopting the governments interpretation produces seemingly unfair results by precluding potentially meritorious claims when a plaintiffs FTCA claims fail for unrelated reasons. In this case, Kings failure to show bad faith, which is irrelevant to his constitutional claims, means a jury will never decide whether the officers violated Kings constitutional rights when they stopped, searched, and hospitalized him., This interpretation of FTCA, Sotomayor added, also appears inefficient since it incentivizes plaintiffs to bring separate suits, first against federal employees directly and second against the United States under the FTCA, which would undermine the judgment bars purpose to prevent duplicative litigation., Although todays decision appears at first glance to deal a blow to constitutional accountability, in reality, the Supreme Court teed up the central issue in this case for the federal appeals court to reconsider, said Institute for Justice Attorney Patrick Jaicomo, who argued on behalf of King before the Supreme Court last November. [00:00:49] So a lot has been happening in this area in a very short period of time, and we Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the district courts order was a judgment on the merits of the FTCA claims that can trigger the judgment bar, noting that a ruling that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may simultaneously be a judgment on the merits that triggers the judgment bar.. IJ provides principled advocacy and issue-area expertise to support legislation that expands individual liberty and protects vital constitutional rights. at 12, 26. See Blacks Law Dictionary, at 37 (defining action as a civil or criminal judicial proceeding); Blacks Law Dictionary 43 (3d ed. Id. King raises a number of reasons to doubt petitioners reading. But sovereign immunity prevented a suit against the United States itselfeven when a "similarly . In those cases, the court might lack subject-matter jurisdiction for non-merits reasons, in which case it must dismiss the case under just Rule 12(b)(1). King argues that the judgment bar merely supplements common-law claim preclusion by closing a narrow gap, preventing plaintiffs from bringing duplicative litigation against first the United States and then its employees. Law Enforcement Action Partnership (Law Enforcement), in support of King, asserts that more plaintiffs pursuing separate Bivens claims before their FTCA claims would increase government expenses, since the government often elects to pay the litigation costs of federal employees facing Bivens actions. officers, stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court. . . If the judgment determines that the plaintiff has no cause of action based on rules of substantive law, then it is on the merits. Restatement of Judgments 49, Comment a, p. 193 (1942). 4 King argues, among other things, that the judgment bar does not apply to a dismissal of claims raised in the same lawsuit because common- law claim preclusion ordinarily is not appropriate within a single lawsuit. 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure 4401 (3d ed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging four violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. The first is issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. The law, however, already bars double recovery for the same injury. Brownback further maintains that Congress sought to extend the judgment bar to intentional torts by federal law enforcement officers following Bivens through the 1974 amendment to Section 2680(h). The Sixth Circuit did not address those arguments, and we are a court of review, not of first view. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n.7 (2005). See Part IIB, supra. Brownback asserts that pursuant to Section 2676 of the FTCA, a judgment in an FTCA claim bars the claimant from suing based on the same subject matter the employee of the government whose actions were the basis of the claim. The pictures they had proved that the fugitive looked nothing like James. When uniformed officers arrived on the scene, one went around, James sought justice by filing a federal lawsuit against the officers and the federal government. See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 348 (1971) ([T]he law . There are naturally counterarguments to those counterarguments, and so on, but further elaboration here is unnecessary. The district court dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Brownback on the basis of qualified immunity. This is a significant departure from the normal operation of common-law claim preclusion, which applies only in separate or subsequent suits following a final judgment.
