United States v. Shearer
473 U.S. 52 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Feres doctrine bars Federal Tort Claims Act suits brought on behalf of a service member killed by another service member if the basis of the claim is negligent failure to supervise or control, as such a claim would require a civilian court to second-guess core military disciplinary decisions.
Facts:
- Private Andrew Heard, a U.S. Army serviceman, was convicted of manslaughter by a German court and served a prison sentence.
- Upon his release, the Army, aware of his violent history, transferred Private Heard to Fort Bliss in the United States.
- Private Vernon Shearer was another serviceman also stationed at Fort Bliss.
- While both men were off-duty and away from the military base, Private Heard kidnapped and murdered Private Shearer.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondent, the mother of the deceased Private Shearer, sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The District Court, a trial court, granted summary judgment in favor of the government.
- Respondent, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the suit could proceed.
- The United States, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
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 Feres doctrine bar a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit brought by the survivor of a serviceman who was murdered by another serviceman, based on the Army's alleged negligence in supervising the assailant?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
Yes. The Feres doctrine bars the lawsuit because the claim challenges the core of military management and discipline. Respondent's claim that the Army was negligent in supervising and controlling Private Heard goes directly to military command decisions. Allowing such suits would require Army officers to testify in civilian court and defend 'complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, ... and control of a military force,' which would impair essential military discipline. The fact that Private Shearer was off-duty and off-base is less important than the fact that the lawsuit questions basic military judgments regarding personnel. A plurality of the Court also reasoned that the claim was independently barred by the FTCA's intentional tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), because the claim, though framed as negligence, ultimately 'arises out of' the assault and battery committed by Private Heard.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
Concurring in the judgment. Justice Brennan joined Part II-B of the Court's opinion, agreeing that the lawsuit was barred by the Feres doctrine. However, he did not join Part II-A, explicitly rejecting the plurality's reasoning that the FTCA's intentional tort exception would also bar the claim.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Concurring in the judgment. Justice Marshall joined Part II-B of the opinion, agreeing that the Feres doctrine barred the suit. He noted his reservations about the Feres doctrine generally but found it applicable in this case.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces and arguably expands the Feres doctrine by shifting the analytical focus from the victim's status (e.g., on- or off-duty) to the nature of the alleged government negligence. By prioritizing the protection of military command decisions, the Court made it substantially more difficult for service members or their families to bring claims rooted in the military's internal management, supervision, or discipline of personnel. This precedent solidifies the judiciary's reluctance to intervene in matters considered essential to military function and discipline, even when the injury occurs outside a traditional combat or training context.
