Lexplug logoLexplug

Mengert v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
120 F.4th 696 (2024)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) qualify as 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), waiving sovereign immunity for intentional torts; however, to sustain a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) under Oklahoma law, a plaintiff must demonstrate distress so severe that it disrupts daily life or requires medical treatment.


Facts:

  • Rhonda Mengert arrived at Tulsa International Airport for a flight to Las Vegas and proceeded through the TSA PreCheck screening area.
  • During a pat-down, TSO Amy Morroney detected an object in Mengert's groin area, which was a feminine hygiene product; an explosives trace test on the object was negative.
  • TSO Morroney and TSO Whitney Brown escorted Mengert to a private screening room and instructed her to lower her shorts and underwear to remove the object for visual inspection.
  • Mengert verbally protested the request but complied, removing the hygiene product while the officers observed.
  • The officers confirmed the object was not a threat, and Mengert was allowed to leave the room after requesting to do so multiple times.
  • The entire encounter lasted approximately seven minutes, with three minutes spent in the private room.
  • Following the incident, Mengert experienced symptoms of a panic attack, including shaking and shortness of breath, and continues to experience anxiety when traveling, though she still flies regularly.

Procedural Posture:

  • Mengert filed a complaint against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma asserting claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
  • The District Court denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.
  • The District Court granted the government's motion to dismiss the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) claim for failure to state a claim.
  • The District Court denied Mengert's motion for leave to amend her complaint.
  • The District Court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim.
  • Mengert appealed the dismissal of the IIED claim, the denial of the amendment, and the summary judgment; the government appealed the jurisdictional ruling regarding sovereign immunity.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Are Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) considered 'investigative or law enforcement officers' within the meaning of the Federal Tort Claims Act's law enforcement proviso, thereby waiving the United States' sovereign immunity for claims arising from their conduct?


Opinions:

Majority - Circuit Judge Ebel

Yes, Transportation Security Officers are 'investigative or law enforcement officers' under the FTCA because they are officers of the United States empowered by law to execute searches for violations of federal law. The court employed a textualist approach, determining that TSOs fit the ordinary meaning of 'officer' and are explicitly empowered by statute to conduct screenings, which constitute 'searches.' The court rejected the government's argument that the proviso applies only to criminal law enforcement or searches requiring warrants, noting that the statute does not contain the word 'criminal.' Consequently, the United States has waived sovereign immunity. However, regarding the merits, the court affirmed the dismissal of Mengert's IIED claim because her distress—while real—did not prevent her from working or traveling monthly, and thus was not 'severe' under Oklahoma law. Additionally, the court affirmed summary judgment on the false arrest claim because the detention itself was legally justified to resolve the alarm, and challenging the invasiveness of the search (the 'strip search') relates to the manner of detention, not the legal authority to detain.


Dissenting - Circuit Judge Tymkovich

No, the statutory phrase 'execute searches' should be read narrowly in the context of the accompanying terms 'seize evidence' and 'make arrests,' which imply traditional police powers that TSOs lack. The dissent argued that waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of the government. By applying the canon of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps), the dissent concluded that 'execute searches' refers to criminal investigations, not administrative screenings. Therefore, the dissent would have found that the government retains sovereign immunity and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the tort claims.



Analysis:

This decision deepens an existing circuit split regarding the status of TSA agents under the FTCA. By joining the Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, the Tenth Circuit reinforces the majority view that the 'law enforcement proviso' covers TSOs, rejecting the Eleventh Circuit's contrary holding. This ruling significantly expands the potential liability of the United States government for the conduct of airport security personnel within the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction. However, the decision simultaneously illustrates the high substantive bar for tort claims; despite establishing jurisdiction, the plaintiff lost on the merits because the specific elements of IIED (severity of distress) and false arrest (unlawful detention vs. unlawful conduct during detention) were not met. This distinction emphasizes that overcoming sovereign immunity is merely the first hurdle in FTCA litigation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Mengert v. United States (2024)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"