`
`
`THOMAS, J., dissenting
`
`1
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`LINDA LANUS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
`ESTATE OF ERIC K. LANUS v. UNITED STATES
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
`STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`
`No. 12–862. Decided June 27, 2013
`
` The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
`
` JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from denial of certiorari.
` Petitioner Linda Lanus asks the Court to revisit our
`decision in Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135 (1950),
`which interpreted the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to
`deny military personnel the ability to recover for injuries
`resulting from the negligence of federal employees. I would
`grant the petition to reconsider Feres’ exclusion of claims
`by military personnel from the scope of the FTCA.
` The FTCA is a sweeping waiver of sovereign immunity
`that, under specified circumstances, renders the Govern-
`ment liable for money damages for a variety of injuries
`caused by the negligence of Government employees. 28
`U. S. C. §1346(b)(1). As written, the FTCA “renders the
`United States liable to all persons, including service-
`men, injured by the negligence of Government employ-
`ees.” United States v. Johnson, 481 U. S. 681, 693 (1987)
`(SCALIA, J., dissenting). While the Act contains a number
`of exceptions to this broad waiver of immunity, “none
`generally precludes FTCA suits brought by servicemen.”
`Ibid. Congress contemplated such an exception, Feres,
`supra, at 139, but codified language that is far more lim-
`ited. See §2680(j) (excluding from waiver “[a]ny claim
`arising out of the combatant activities of the military or
`naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war”
`(emphasis added)).
` Nevertheless, in Feres, the Court held that “the Gov-
`ernment is not liable under the [FTCA] for injuries to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`LANUS v. UNITED STATES
`
`
`THOMAS, J., dissenting
`
`servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the
`course of activity incident to service.” 340 U. S., at 146.
`There is no support for this conclusion in the text of the
`statute, and it has the unfortunate consequence of depriv-
`ing servicemen of any remedy when they are injured by
`the negligence of the Government or its employees. I tend
`to agree with Justice Scalia that “Feres was wrongly de-
`cided and heartily deserves the widespread, almost uni-
`versal criticism it has received.” Johnson, supra, at 700
`(internal quotation marks omitted). At a bare minimum,
`it should be reconsidered.
` The instant petition asks the Court to do just that. I
`would grant this request. Private reliance interests on a
`decision that precludes tort recoveries by military person-
`nel are nonexistent, and I see no other reason why the
`Court should hesitate to bring its interpretation of the FTCA
`in line with the plain meaning of the statute. I, there-
`fore, respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny
`this petition.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
