Brownback v. King
592 U. S. ____ (2021) (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A dismissal of a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim, even for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, can constitute a "judgment on the merits" for the purpose of triggering the FTCA's judgment bar, particularly when the court's jurisdictional determination necessarily passes on the substance of the claim.
Facts:
- James King had a violent encounter with officers Todd Allen and Douglas Brownback.
- Officers Allen and Brownback were members of a federal task force.
- The officers mistakenly identified King as a fugitive during the encounter.
- King alleged that the officers committed six torts under Michigan law.
- King also alleged that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Procedural Posture:
- James King sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging state torts, and sued officers Todd Allen and Douglas Brownback individually under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, alleging Fourth Amendment violations.
- The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, or alternatively, moved for summary judgment in the District Court (trial court).
- The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the Government on King's FTCA claims, finding the officers were entitled to state qualified immunity, and alternatively ruled that King's FTCA claims failed under Rule 12(b)(6) for not stating a plausible claim to relief.
- The District Court also dismissed King's Bivens claims, ruling that the defendants were entitled to federal qualified immunity.
- King appealed only the dismissal of his Bivens claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- The Sixth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) found that the District Court's dismissal of King's FTCA claims did not trigger the judgment bar, reasoning that the claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and thus the court "did not reach the merits."
- The Sixth Circuit then reversed the District Court's ruling on the Bivens claims, holding that the defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court's dismissal of Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims, which rests on both a summary judgment ruling based on state qualified immunity and an alternative Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim, constitute a "judgment in an action under section 1346(b)" that triggers the FTCA's judgment bar, even if the dismissal also deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, the District Court's dismissal of King’s FTCA claims was a judgment on the merits that can trigger the judgment bar, even if it simultaneously determined a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment bar, like common-law claim preclusion, requires a final judgment "on the merits," which traditionally means the decision "actually passes directly on the substance of a particular claim before the court" (Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U. S. 497, 501–502 (2001)). The District Court's summary judgment ruling, based on the availability of state qualified immunity for the officers, clearly passed on a substantive element of King's FTCA claims—whether the government employee would be liable under state law. Similarly, the alternative Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim also concerned the merits because it found King had "no cause of action" based "on rules of substantive law." In the unique context of the FTCA, all elements of a meritorious claim are also jurisdictional (FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U. S. 471, 477 (1994)). Therefore, when King's FTCA claims failed on the merits under Rule 12(b)(6), the court also necessarily determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although a court typically cannot rule on the merits if it lacks jurisdiction (Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 101–102 (1998)), this principle does not apply when pleading a claim and pleading jurisdiction "entirely overlap," as they do in FTCA cases. The District Court thus had the power to decide the jurisdictional element, and in doing so, passed on the merits.
Concurring - Justice Sotomayor
Yes, Justice Sotomayor agreed with the Court's conclusion that the District Court dismissed King's FTCA claims on the merits. However, she wrote separately to emphasize that the Court did not decide whether the FTCA's judgment bar precludes other claims arising out of the same subject matter in the same suit. She noted that many lower courts have applied the bar to claims within the same action without sufficient consideration, but there are strong textual and purposive arguments to question this conclusion. Textually, she argued that "judgment in an action" and "any action" in §2676 suggest a final order resolving an entire lawsuit and precluding later lawsuits, not individual claims within the same ongoing litigation. She pointed out that Congress used clearer language in §2672 for administrative settlements to "release of any claim" against both the U.S. and its employees. Purposively, she suggested that the judgment bar functions like common-law claim preclusion by preventing duplicative subsequent litigation, not by forcing plaintiffs into separate suits to avoid preclusion of co-pending claims, which seems inefficient and potentially unfair. She concluded that this specific issue deserves closer analysis and, where appropriate, reconsideration.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar, particularly where substantive claims intertwine with jurisdictional elements. By holding that a dismissal on the merits, even if it also implicates subject-matter jurisdiction, triggers the bar, the Supreme Court reinforces the preclusive effect of initial FTCA judgments. This ruling provides a clearer standard for lower courts assessing the finality and preclusive impact of FTCA claim dismissals, potentially reducing the number of subsequent Bivens actions against federal employees stemming from the same events. However, Justice Sotomayor's concurrence highlights a critical unresolved question regarding whether the judgment bar applies to claims within the same lawsuit, suggesting future litigation may address this important procedural nuance.
