Millbrook v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
569 U.S. 50, 133 S. Ct. 1441, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2543 (2013)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The 'law enforcement proviso' of the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in specific investigative or law enforcement activities at the time of the tort.

Facts:

Kim Millbrook was a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
On March 5, 2010, Millbrook encountered three correctional officers while in custody.
According to Millbrook, one officer held him in a choke hold while another officer stood watch.
Millbrook alleged that the officers forced him to perform oral sex.
The officers allegedly threatened to kill Millbrook if he did not comply with their demands.
Millbrook claimed he suffered physical injuries resulting from this incident.

Procedural Posture:

Millbrook sued the United States in the Federal District Court alleging negligence, assault, and battery under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States, ruling that the claim was barred by sovereign immunity.
Millbrook appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, relying on precedent that limited liability to torts committed during searches, seizures, or arrests.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split 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 'law enforcement proviso' of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. §2680(h)) waive sovereign immunity for intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers only when the tortious conduct occurs during the course of executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

No, the waiver of sovereign immunity is not limited to conduct occurring during searches, seizures, or arrests. The Court held that the plain text of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives immunity for acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of the specific activity the officer is engaged in. The statute defines an 'investigative or law enforcement officer' based on their legal status—specifically, whether they are empowered to execute searches, seize evidence, or make arrests. This definition identifies who may generate liability for the government, not when liability attaches. The statute contains no language restricting the waiver to times when officers are actively performing those specific duties. Because Congress did not explicitly limit the waiver to 'investigative or law enforcement activities,' the Court declined to read such a limitation into the text.

Analysis:

This decision significantly broadens the scope of government liability for the misconduct of federal law enforcement officers. By overturning the restrictive interpretation applied by the Third Circuit (and the 'Pooler' precedent), the Supreme Court ensured that victims of intentional torts—such as prisoners assaulted by guards—can sue the federal government even if the assault occurred during routine duties rather than during an arrest or seizure. It reinforces a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, refusing to add limitations to a statute that Congress did not write.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Millbrook v. United States (2013)

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