A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday issued a limited ruling on the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar. Specifically, King maintains that Section 2676 codified res judicata because it directly borrowed phrases like same subject matter and complete bar from the common-law principle. Brownback argued that a finding on the merits had triggered the FTCAs judgment bar and precluded Kings constitutional claims against him. 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). Respondent King counters that the primary purpose of the FTCA is to waive the federal governments sovereign immunity in civil actions for tort violations, granting district courts exclusive jurisdiction over those claims instead. We granted certiorari, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), and nowreverse. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows a plaintiff to bring certain state-law tort claims against the United States for torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, provided that the plaintiff alleges six statutory elements of an actionable claim. King sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging that the officers committed six torts under Michigan law. Brownback v. King Update - The Campaign To End Qualified Immunity Brownback v. King Update February 26, 2021 Even though the Supreme Court ruled against James King, the Michigan man who sued the federal government after he was assaulted by a detective and an FBI agent, the case of Brownback v. King is not fully closed. They are assisted by local counsel D. Andrew Portinga. Brownback proposes that King granted subject matter jurisdiction onto the district court by alleging the elements under Section 1346(b)(1) because his action necessarily required the court to resolve the merits of his claim. 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. In 2020, Brownback v. King became the first case in IJs Project on Immunity and Accountability argued before the United States Supreme Court. 79. (b)In passing on Kings FTCA claims, the District Court also determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. officers, stands outside the U.S. Supreme Court. The District Court dismissed his FTCA claims, holding that the Government was immune because the officers were entitled to qualified immunity under Michigan law, or in the alternative, that King failed to state a valid claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Typically, the federal government cant be sued for damages, but the FTCA waives this sovereign immunity if the United States, were it a private individual, could be held liable in the state where the tort occurred. 3 The terms res judicata and claim preclusion often are used interchangeably. Argued November 9, 2020Decided February 25, 2021. King counters that Section 2676s judgment bar does not apply to his Bivens claims because he failed to satisfy the elements under Section 1346(b)(1), which is a necessary precondition for a district court to have subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA. Brief for Petitioner at 27. Under the common law, judgments were preclusive with respect to issues decided as long as the court had the power to decide the issue. 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 . Cf. 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. Suits involve the same claim or cause of action if the later suit aris[es] from the same transaction or involves a common nucleus of operative facts. Ibid. The District Court did just that with its Rule 12(b)(6) decision.9. 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. Id. 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. 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. That provision states: The 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. 2676. 2 Some courts have held that precluding claims in the same action prevents plaintiffs from recovering for the same injury from both the United States and the federal employee. Brownback claims that the FTCAs original judgment bar balanced the newly-created cause of action against the United States with the preclusion of related claims against the government employees. L.J., at 424, n. 39. King emphasizes that whether Section 2676 bars subsequent Bivens claims in a separate action has no bearing on this case; the district court did not enter judgment as to all the claims in the action under Section 1346(b), but rather made a judgment regarding only whether Kings FTCA claim established the elements necessary to grant the court jurisdiction Id. The court dis- missed King's Bivens claims as well, ruling that the defend- ants were entitled to federal qualified immunity. Id. King pursued only the constitutional claims on appeal, but the government, representing the officers, asserted that those claims were . Torts (FTCA, Bivens Actions, section 1983, Qualified Immunity) Briefs: 19-546_brownback_v._king_reply_pet.pdf. at 423. 2676 that precludes him from raising separate claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents on appeal. at 35. 1 In 1939 and 1940 the 76th Congress considered 1,763 private bills, of which 315 became law. Footer Menu Justice. Thus, even though a plaintiff need not prove a 1346(b)(1) jurisdictional element for a court to maintain subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477, because Kings FTCA claims failed to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court also was deprived of subject-matter jurisdiction. Brownback argues that barring a plaintiffs Bivens action after a district court has dismissed claims brought under the FTCA conforms to the FTCAs objective of opening access to the courts by offering plaintiffs the ability to sue the United States without allowing for repetitious actions against individual federal employees. (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 . 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. The FBI, for example. I write separately to emphasize that, while many lower courts have uncritically held that the FTCAs judgment bar applies to claims brought in the same action, there are reasons to question that conclusion. 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. and that the individual defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. NOTICE:This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. This case involves a violent encounter between respondent James King and officers Todd Allen and Douglas Brownback, members of a federal task force, who mistook King for a fugitive. See ante, at 5, n.4. IJ produces one-of-a-kind, high-quality research to enhance our effectiveness in court, educate the public, and shape public debate around our key issues. The underlying facts of Brownback v. King are straightforward. Given that the district court decided Kings FTCA on the merits, and that Kings Bivens claims arise out of the same subject matter as the torts he alleged under the FTCA, Brownback argues that Section 2676 precludes him from pursuing his Bivens claims. Now, IJ is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and deny the government one of its many tools to avoid the Constitution. Id. See our clients talk about their experiences and learn how we are fighting for their rightsand yours. WORLD Radio - Legal Docket: Brownback v King - S2.E1. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 510511. Id. Today, about a thousand task forces operate nationwide. That occurred here. 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. So read, the statutory judgment bar functions in much the same way as claim preclusion, with both rules depending on a prior judgment as a condition precedent. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 354 (2006).1, Turning next to the FTCAs purpose and effect, under Kings reading, the judgment bar also serves the same, familiar functions as claim preclusion: avoiding duplicative litigation by barring repetitive suits against employees without reflecting a policy that a defendant should be scot free of any liability. Ibid. at 43233. en ESPAOL; Id. 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. We fight for our clients at every level of the legal system, and weve been to the U.S. Supreme Court 10 times to date. Brownback asserts that applying the judgment bar to Kings Bivens claim after a judgment in favor of the United States on the FTCA action is proper because King was afforded an adequate opportunity to establish the elements of his FTCA claim. 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. Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U. S. 621, 630, n. 5 (2016); see also ibid. The court also dismissed Kings Bivens claims, ruling that the officers were entitled to federal qualified immunity. But an on-the-merits judgment can still trigger the judgment bar, even if that determination necessarily deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. (9) The doctrine of qualified immunity has severely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to recover damages under section 1983 when their rights have been violated by State and local officials. While waiving sovereign immunity so parties can sue the United States directly for harms caused by its employees, the FTCA made it more difficult to sue the employees themselves by adding a judgment bar provision. Respondent James King sued the United States under the FTCA after a violent encounter with Todd Allen and Douglas Brownback, members of a federal task force.