Kosak v. United States
1984 U.S. LEXIS 45, 79 L. Ed. 2d 860, 465 U.S. 848 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Tort Claims Act's sovereign immunity exception for claims "arising in respect of... the detention of any goods" by customs officers, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), bars claims for injury to property sustained during its detention, including those claims resulting from the negligent handling or storage of that property.
Facts:
- While a serviceman stationed in Guam, petitioner Kosak assembled a large collection of oriental art.
- Upon his transfer to Philadelphia, Kosak brought his art collection with him, declaring he intended to keep it for personal use.
- Acting on information that Kosak planned to resell the art, U.S. Customs Service agents obtained a warrant and seized various items from his collection.
- Kosak was criminally charged with smuggling but was acquitted by a jury.
- The Customs Service initiated civil forfeiture proceedings but ultimately granted Kosak's petition for relief and returned the goods.
- Upon receiving the returned items, Kosak alleged that some objects had been damaged while in the custody of the Customs Service.
Procedural Posture:
- Kosak filed an administrative complaint with the Customs Service seeking compensation for the damaged property, which the Service denied.
- Kosak filed suit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The Government moved for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c).
- The District Court, a court of first instance, granted the Government's motion and dismissed the case.
- Kosak, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
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 the Federal Tort Claims Act's exception for claims 'arising in respect of... the detention of any goods' by customs officers, found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), bar a lawsuit against the United States for physical damage to property caused by the negligence of Customs Service employees while the property is detained?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. The exception found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c) precludes recovery against the United States for injury to private property sustained during its temporary detention by the Customs Service. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute, which exempts '[a]ny claim arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods,' is expansive. This phrase means any claim 'arising out of' the detention, and therefore includes claims for damages caused by negligent handling or storage, not just claims challenging the detention itself. This broad interpretation is supported by the legislative history, which indicates the drafter intended to include immunity for 'loss in connection with the detention of goods.' The court also found this interpretation consistent with Congress's general purposes for the FTCA's exceptions: to avoid disrupting government activities like customs enforcement, to protect the government from fraudulent claims, and because alternative remedies against individual officers already existed.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The statutory exception should not bar a claim for physical damage to property. The phrase 'in respect of . . . the detention' should be read narrowly to mean liability attributable to the temporary interference with possession itself, such as economic loss from delay, not physical damage to the goods during that period. Congress used the broader phrase 'arising out of' in other FTCA exceptions but chose the narrower 'in respect of' here, implying a different, more limited intent. The majority improperly relies on an internal Justice Department working paper (the 'Holtzoff Report') that was never part of the legislative record. Furthermore, the majority's policy arguments are inconsistent; if Congress feared fraud, it would not have left open remedies under the Tucker Act, and if it feared chilling enforcement, it would not have allowed suits against individual officers, which pose a greater deterrent than suits against the government.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act's customs detention exception. It establishes that § 2680(c) is not limited to claims challenging the legality of the detention itself but provides a comprehensive shield against liability for nearly any damage to property while in customs custody. The ruling solidifies a strong pro-government interpretation of this exception, forcing claimants to pursue other, more difficult remedies like suing individual officers or proving an implied-in-fact contract under the Tucker Act. This creates a significant barrier to recovery for individuals whose property is damaged by the government during customs seizures.
