Update: Argument Recap Kevin Russell, Scotus Blog
Argument centers on an exception to an exception. The Federal Tort Claims Act 28 USC 2680 (h) provides for the United States to be liable for the tortious acts of its agents except for claims of assault, battery, false arrest and imprisonment, etc. provided that the exception does not apply to federal law enforcement officers. - gwc
Torts Blog: Supreme Court ready to hear another case on the Federal Torts Claims Act:
by Prof. Alberto Bernabe
Tomorrow, the Court will hear another case against the US based on the Federal Torts Claims Act challenging a narrow interpretation of the Act by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The case involves a claim filed by an inmate in a federal prison who alleges he was beaten up and forced to perform oral sex on a prison guard. The District Court dismissed the complaint and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed holding that the government is liable only for injuries committed by law enforcement officers when they are “executing a search, seizing evidence or making arrests for violations of federal law.”
It is not too surprising to see the court interpret the statute so narrowly. Federal courts have tended to favor a narrow interpretation of the statute in order to protect the government of the possible liability, but, at least according to some sources, the Third Circuit is in the minority when it comes to the interpretation of the particular section of the statute relevant to the case.
Interestingly, the US government itself has changed its position since the beginning of the case. In its brief, the solicitor general is now arguing that the proper interpretation of the statute should be broader, suggesting that law enforcement officers should be liable for wrongs done while acting within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether they occur during a search, a seizure of evidence, or an arrest. The solicitor general now seems to support the position that the Third Circuit’s approach improperly limits the courts’ ability to remedy government wrongdoing as Congress intended.
The case is called Millbrook v. United States. Go here for all the relevant documents, including briefs and lower court opinions. Go HERE for the audio of oral argument.
'via Blog this'
Argument centers on an exception to an exception. The Federal Tort Claims Act 28 USC 2680 (h) provides for the United States to be liable for the tortious acts of its agents except for claims of assault, battery, false arrest and imprisonment, etc. provided that the exception does not apply to federal law enforcement officers. - gwc
Torts Blog: Supreme Court ready to hear another case on the Federal Torts Claims Act:
by Prof. Alberto Bernabe
Tomorrow, the Court will hear another case against the US based on the Federal Torts Claims Act challenging a narrow interpretation of the Act by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The case involves a claim filed by an inmate in a federal prison who alleges he was beaten up and forced to perform oral sex on a prison guard. The District Court dismissed the complaint and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed holding that the government is liable only for injuries committed by law enforcement officers when they are “executing a search, seizing evidence or making arrests for violations of federal law.”
It is not too surprising to see the court interpret the statute so narrowly. Federal courts have tended to favor a narrow interpretation of the statute in order to protect the government of the possible liability, but, at least according to some sources, the Third Circuit is in the minority when it comes to the interpretation of the particular section of the statute relevant to the case.
Interestingly, the US government itself has changed its position since the beginning of the case. In its brief, the solicitor general is now arguing that the proper interpretation of the statute should be broader, suggesting that law enforcement officers should be liable for wrongs done while acting within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether they occur during a search, a seizure of evidence, or an arrest. The solicitor general now seems to support the position that the Third Circuit’s approach improperly limits the courts’ ability to remedy government wrongdoing as Congress intended.
The case is called Millbrook v. United States. Go here for all the relevant documents, including briefs and lower court opinions. Go HERE for the audio of oral argument.
'via Blog this'
No comments:
Post a Comment