`
`1
`
`
`
` Cite as: 587 U. S. ____ (2019)
`
` THOMAS, J., dissenting
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`WALTER DANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL
`REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF REBEKAH
`DANIEL v. UNITED STATES
`
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
`
`STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 18–460. Decided May 20, 2019
` The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE
`
`
`
`GINSBURG would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.
`
` JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
`
`
`Petitioner Walter Daniel filed this tort suit against the
`
`
`United States after his wife, Navy Lieutenant Rebekah
` Daniel, died at a naval hospital due to a complication
`
`
` following childbirth. The District Court determined that
`the suit was barred by Feres v. United States, 340 U. S.
`135 (1950), which held that military personnel injured by
`the negligence of a federal employee cannot sue the United
`
`States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court of
`Appeals “regretfully” reached the same conclusion and
`affirmed. 889 F. 3d 978, 980 (CA9 2018).
`
`
`Petitioner now asks the Court to reconsider Feres. I
`
`have explained before that “‘Feres was wrongly decided
`and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal
`criticism it has received.’” Lanus v. United States, 570
`U. S. 932, 933 (2013) (quoting United States v. Johnson,
`481 U. S. 681, 700 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). I write
`again to point out the unintended consequences of this
`Court’s refusal to revisit Feres.
`
`
`Earlier this Term, in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v.
`DeVries, 586 U. S. ___ (2019), we confronted the case of
`two veterans who alleged that their exposure to asbestos
`
`caused them to develop cancer. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 3).
`
`Both veterans served in the U. S. Navy on ships outfitted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
` DANIEL v. UNITED STATES
`
` THOMAS, J., dissenting
`
`
` with equipment that used asbestos insulation or parts.
`
`Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2). The manufacturers of that
`equipment delivered much of it to the Navy in “bare-
`metal” condition, i.e., without asbestos, meaning that the
`Navy added the asbestos to the equipment after delivery.
`
`Id., at ___ (slip op., at 3). Neither veteran was exposed to
`any asbestos sold or delivered by the equipment manufac-
`turers, as opposed to asbestos added by the Navy. See id.,
`
`at ___, and n. 1 (slip op., at 3, and n. 1). Yet because the
`
`Navy was likely immune from suit under Feres, the veter-
`ans sued the manufacturers. 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op.,
`at 3). This Court then twisted traditional tort principles
`to afford them the possibility of relief. Id., at ___–___
`(GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 2–3).
`Such unfortunate repercussions—denial of relief to
`
`military personnel and distortions of other areas of law to
`compensate—will continue to ripple through our jurispru-
`dence as long as the Court refuses to reconsider Feres.
`Had Congress itself determined that servicemembers
`cannot recover for the negligence of the country they
`
`serve, the dismissal of their suits “would (insofar as we are
`permitted to inquire into such things) be just.” Johnson,
`supra, at 703 (Scalia, J., dissenting). But it did not. Ac-
`cordingly, I 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
