FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 4, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 12 87 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 02 6- CV-4 -MM P-AK
ANDREW

NGUYEN , MD, anin di vi du al , ANDREW

NGUYEN , MD PA, A Flo rid a Pro fes si on al Ass oc ia ti on Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ On Re co ns id erat io n

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 4, 2 00 9)Befo re CARNES a ndMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es , andBUCKLEW , Dis tri ctJu dg e. * CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Altho ug h n ei th er p arty

ha s p et it io ne d fo r reh eari ng , we res ci ndou r ear li er op in io n i n t hi s ca se , Ngu y env. Un it edSta te s, 5 45 F.3d12 82 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), an d
subs ti tu te th is on e fo r it
. Thi s ap pe al bri ng s u s the qu es ti on of wh ethe r th e wai ve r of so ve rei gn imm un it y inth e Fed eral TortCla im s Act , 28 U.S.C. § 1 34 6( b) , ext en ds to cla im s of fal se arre st , fal se im

pr is on m en t, an d m al ic io us pro se cu ti on ari si ng fro m th e act s orom is si on s o f fed eral in ve st ig at iv e o r la w enf or cem en t o ffi cers . See i d. § 26 80 (h ). The fa ct s o f th is cas e sh ow wh y Co ng res s h as ch os ento waiv e th e so ve rei gn imm

un it y of t he Uni te d S ta te s i n s om e ci rcu m st an ces , andth e p la in ti ff’s st ory il lu st rat es th e v al ue of l iv in g i n aco un try where a ci ti zen m ay purs ue cla im s ag ai ns t the go ve rn m en t i n t ho se cir cu m st an ces . I. And rew Ng uyen o ve rcam e a l otof o bs ta cl es on hi s way to b eco m in g a ci ti zen of t he Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca en ti tl edto th e fu ll pro te ct io n o f it s l aws . He was bo rninHano i i n 1 93 8. Whenth e co m m un is ts to okco ntro l o f North

Honora ble Susan C. Buc klew, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation. 2Viet na m , he m ov edso ut h a t ag e si xt een . At ag e twe nt y -fi ve , Ngu y enco m pl et eda pr e-m ed ic al educ at io n p ro gr am at aco ll eg e in Sai go n. Lat er h e earne d am ed ic al de gr ee fr om

a sc ho ol inSai go n t ha t was accr ed it edby the Am eri can Med ic al Ass oc ia ti on . Dur in g t he Viet na m W ar, Dr. Ngu y enserve d a s a c om ba t p hysic ia n in th e So ut h Vi etna m es e army forth ree years, e ve ntua ll y earn in g t he ran k o f cap ta in
. He was in

jure d i n c om

ba t. Afte r th e co m

m un is ts to okov er So ut h Vi etna m , Dr. Ngu y enwas a rres te d at th e te m po rary hos pi ta l wh ere h e worke d. Fal se ly accus edof b ei ng a sp y lef t be hi ndby the CIA, he was i m pr is on edfor

a y ear. Inpri so n h e was for cedto do ha rdlab orth atin

jure d h is ba ck
. Whe n Dr. Ng uyen was fin al ly relea se d fr om pr is on , he wen t t o wo rkat apri va te , 60 0- be d C hi ne se ho sp it al inSai go n, s erv in g as ch ie f of

th e em erg en cy

roo m fortwo y ears an d t he n a s ch ie f of in te rn al
m ed ic in e fo r an ot he r two y ears . Dr. Ngu y enatt em

pt edto esc ap e fro m

Viet na m m or e th anon ce. In19 78 aft er h is fir stesc ap e at te m ptfai le d, the forty-y ear- ol d Dr. Ng uyen was pu t i n jai l ag ai n, thi s t im e fo r ni ne m on th s. Afte r he go t o ut , Dr. Ngu y enbe ga n p la nn in g an ot he r es cap e, on e th atev en tu al ly inc lu de d e ig hty -o ne pe op le de sp erat e to fle e co m m un is t ru le
. Thro ug h ape ril ou s, fo ur -d ay seavo y ag e inanol d b oa t b urni ng ga so li ne th atha d b een bo ug hton e g al lo n a t a t im e o n t he bl ackm ark et , th e g ro up 3m an ag edto esc ap e to th e se as ho re o f Tha il an d. The y sp en t m on th s i n arefu ge e cam p t he re. W it h t he he lp of s om e rel at iv es inth is co un try, Dr. Nguy enth enm ad e h is way to Am eri ca. He was requi redto pa ss th ree e xa m in at io ns to ge t h is Am eri can
m ed ic al li cen se . Inth e m ean ti m e h e worke d a t a n ews pape r as a tr an sl at oran d al so serve d a t a VA h os pi ta l as a vo lu nt eer p hysic ia n. He ul ti m at el y ob ta in edtwo st at e m ed ic al li cen se s, o ne fro m Flo rid a an d t he ot he r fro m Mas sa ch us et ts . A frie ndof h is pu t Dr. Ng uyen i n c on ta ctwith aph y si ci aninTren to n, Fl or id a who was s el li ng hi s m ed ic al pra ct ic e. Whe n Dr. Ng uyen b ou gh t the pr act ic e in19 84 , he was th e o nl y li cen se d m ed ic al do ct orinTren to n, whi ch ha d a po pu la ti on of l es s t ha n 1 ,50 0. Se e Uni te d S ta te s B ur eauof t he Cen su s, Un it ed St at es Cen su s o f Po pu la ti on : 1 99 0 Gen eral Po pu la ti on Ch arac te ris ti cs , Flo rid a 1
- 11 -9 , Tabl e 1 ; i d. 1 98 0 Nu m be r of Inh ab it an ts , Flo rid a 1 -1 1- 22 , Tabl e 5 . He
ev en tu al ly recei ve d h os pi ta l p riv il eg es at S ha nd s Tea ch in g Ho sp it al an d a t No rth Fl or id a Me di cal Cen te r, bo th of wh ic h a re l oc at edina ne ig hb or in g c ou nt y . The y ear 1 98 6 was anim po rta nton e fo r Dr. Ngu y en . He bec am e a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca. On M arch 23 , 20 00 , Dr. Ngu y enwas s ix ty-two years ol d a ndha d b een pr act ic in g m ed ic in e inTren to n fo r si xt een y ears . The da y st art edou t l ik e an y 4ot he r fo r hi m . He was i n h is off ic e tr eat in g p at ie nt s. A de pu ty from th e Gil ch ris t Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce ca m e in to Dr. Ngu y en ’s off ic e an d arres te d h im

witho ut
warn in g o r ex pl an at io n. Th e d ep ut y was a cco m

pani edby Rob ertYakube c, an ag en t o f th e Dru g En fo rcem en t Ag en cy , who rem ov edfro m th e wal l a c ert ifi cat e th atau th or iz edDr. Ngu y ento pre sc rib e co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es forhi s p at ie nt s. The off ic ers di d n otgi ve th e d oc to r a ch an ce t o e xp la in what ev er the y th ou gh t h e ha d d on e wro ng . The y

to ldhi m th athe ha d n o c ho ic e b utto go to jail
. Dr. Ngu y enin fo rm edhi s wi fe, wh o wo rk edat t he fro ntde sk , th athe was b ei ng carr ie d to jail
. He go t i nt o the ba ckof t he po li ce ca r an d was tak enth ere. The two off

ic ers who ph ot og rap he d a ndfin ge rp rin te d Dr. Ng uyen atth e jail were p at ie nt s o f hi s. The y to okall of h is pe rs on al be lo ng in gs an d i ss ue d h im an in m at e u ni fo rm . He was h el d i n jai l fo r ab ou t fi ve ho ur s. Whenhe was re le as edat th e en d o f th e d ay , Dr. Nguy enst il l d idno t kno w why he ha d b een arre st ed
. Dr. Ngu y enlat er l earn edth athe ha d b een arre st edforsi x c ou nt s o f de li ve ry of a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e invi ol at io n o f Fl a. St at . § 8 93 .13 (1 )(a) , whi ch m ak es ita cri m e to de li ve r a co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e “ [e]xce ptas aut ho riz edby thi s ch ap te r.” Tha t ch ap te r of

th e Fl or id a Co de au th or iz es m ed ic al do ct or s t o d is pe ns e o r pr es cri be co ntro ll edsubs tanc es “ in go odfai th an d i n t he co ur se of h is or h er pr of es si on al pra ct ic e o nl y .” Fla . Sta t. § 89 3.0 5( 1) . The cri m e al le ge d i n asi x5co un t arres t warran t was th atDr. Ngu y enha d d el iv eredLort ab an d Val iu m , whi ch

co nt ai n t he co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es hydro co do ne an d d ia zep am , “ to a co nf id en ti al
so ur ce b y us e o f a wri tt enord er fo r sa iddru g[ s] no t i ss ue d i n g oo d fa it h a ndinth e co ur se of h is pro fes si on al pra ct ic e, co nt rary to s ect io n 8 93 .13 (1 )(a) (2 ).” The no t in go odfai th an d n otinm ed ic al pra ct ic e el em en ts were m or e sp eci fic al ly de sc rib edinth e aff

id av itun de rlyin g t he warran t. Itaccu se d Dr. Ng uyen o f is su in g p res cri pt io ns forth os e two co nt ro ll edsubs tanc es to a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t “ witho utany

type o f ph y si cal ex am in at io n o r m ed ic al ne ed .” Fro m th e warra ntan d a ffi da vi t i t i s cl ear t ha t i f th e dru gs were p res cri be d a fte r ph y si cal
ex am in at io ns an d i n t he co ur se of Dr. Ng uyen’s m ed ic al pra ct ic e, th ere was no cri m e. The p art ie s ag ree abo utth at . Dr. Ngu y enreturne d t o wo rkth e d ay aft er h is arre stho pi ng to pra ct ic e
m ed ic in e as he ha d d on e b efo re, b uthe co ul dn ’t. A pharm acy info rm edhi m th at he co ul d n o l on ge r pr es cri be anyth in g—no t ev enco ug h s yrup. His arre stwas he ad li ne ne ws i n t he lo cal m ed ia
. Pat ie nt s b eg ancal li ng to askif h e was a cri m in al
. The ch arg es ag ai ns t Dr. Ng uyen were no l p ro ss edon May 17, 2 00 0, 5 5 d ay s aft er the arre st , bec au se of “ in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce as to th is de fen da nt .” Tha t act io n d idno t und o t he ha rm fu l d om in o e ffec t the arre stha d o n h is m ed ic al 6pr act ic e. Heal th in su ran ce co m pa ni es , who se pa y

m en ts ha d b eenfif

ty to s ix ty pe rcen t o f hi s p ro fes si on al in co m e, can cel le d t he ir c on tra ct s wi th hi m . Tha t
cau se d h im

to lo se pa ti en ts who pa idwith h eal th in su ran ce. The lo ss of t ho se pa ti en ts cau se d afin an ci al st rai n o n h is pra ct ic e, m ak in g i t d iff ic ul t fo r hi m

to ret ai n e m pl oyees a ndto pu rch as e equi pm en t an d s up pl ie s. As a re su lt , he h adto le t o ne of h is th ree e m

pl oyees g o. Ev enaft er Dr. Ng uyen g othi s p res cri pt io n pr iv il eg es ba cksev eral m on th s l at er, n o h eal th in su ran ce p ro vi de r wou ldag ree t o co nt ractwith h im

ag ai n. Wha t h ap pe ne d t o Dr. Ng uyen’s p ract ic e is whathapp en s t o t he est ab li sh ed pr of es si on al pra ct ic es of m ed ic al do ct or s wh o a re caug htco m m it ti ng cri m es in vo lv in g c on tro ll edsubs ta nc es . If th e rec or d b efo re u s i s t o b e b el ie ve d, ho wev er, Dr. Ngu y enco m m it te d n o c rime. It i s n otjus t tha t the ch arg es ag ai ns t hi m were d is m is se d o n i ns uf

fic ie ntev id en ce g ro un ds . It i s m or e th anth at . The
reco rd , as i t n ow ex is ts , in di cat es th atDr. Ngu y en ’s arres t was no t b as edonan y ev id en ce o f wro ng do in g a t al l. All of t he ev id en ce tha t l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers ha d t he n, as well as n ow, s ho wedth athe was g ui lt y of n o c rime. They arres te d

1 We emphasize that our statements ar e base d on the re cord be foreus and the re cord a s it 1 now exist s. The United States wa s dismis sed on sover eign immunit y grounds bef

ore tria l, and for that r eason w e take the alleg ations of the complaint as true
. Dr. Ng uyen’s c laims ag ainst the sheriff and deputy

sheriff , whom he also named as de fenda nts, went to trial, and the jury found the two of them liable on va rious claims. Although this appeal involves only the def endant United States, we ha

ve dra wn some of the f

acts fr om the trial. Those fa cts areentirely consistent 7hi m

an yway . Dr. Ngu y en ’s arres t g rew o utof ath ree- m on th in ve st ig at io n l edby D EA Age ntRo be rt Ya kube c, who was t he he adof aco nt ro ll edsubs tanc es tas k fo rce ta rg et in g s ev eral ph y si ci an s i n t he area . Thre e ti m es du rin g t he in ve st ig at io n Dr. Ngu y enpre sc rib edLort ab an d Val iu m , whi ch co nt ai n c on tro ll edsubs ta nc es , to a pa ti en t wh o was als o aco nf id en ti al in fo rm an t fo r th e ta skfor ce. On ea ch of t ho se oc cas io ns Dr. Ngu y enor am em be r of hi s s ta ff h adfir stco nduc te d aph y si cal
ex am in at io n o f th e in fo rm an t p at ie nt . All of t he ev id en ce the tas k fo rce o bt ai ne d du rin g t he in ve st ig at io n s ho wedth atth os e ex am in at io ns ha d b een pe rfo rm edeach ti m e. The tas k fo rce e ve n h adtap e rec or di ng s o f th atin fo rm an t p at ie nt ’s off ic e vi si ts with Dr. Ng uyen p ro vi ng th ata ph y si cal ex am in at io n was co nduc te d o n e ach of th e th ree v is it s. Afte r ev ery vi si t the tas k fo rce h adth e in fo rm an t p at ie ntsi gn anaffi da vi t d es cri bi ng whatha d h ap pe ne d wh il e sh e was inDr. Ngu y en ’s off ic e, an d i n t ho se affi da vi ts sh e d es cri be d t he ph y si cal ex am in at io ns th atha d b een co nduc te d b efo re s he go t the pre sc rip ti on s. Re co rd s i n Dr. Ng uyen’s o ffi ce n ot
on ly sho wedth atth e p at ie ntha d b een ex am in edbu t al so th atsh e was th ere wi th

with the amende d complaint and provide background information for pre sent purposes. On rema nd, howeve r, the a ctual fa cts will have to be de veloped or re- develope d in summary judgme nt proce eding s or at a trial in which the United States ha s an opportunity to defe nd its interests on grounds other tha n sovere ign immunity
.

8co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t “ ne rv ou sn es s,” “ in so m ni a,” an d “ pa in ,” whi ch sh e to ldth e do ct orsh e h adbe enex pe rie nc in g fo r “ m on th s.” Tho se reco rd s, wh ic h wer e co ns is te ntwith t he co ve rt t ap es an d t he in fo rm an t p at ie nt ’s affi da vi ts , in di cat ed th atth e dru gs were p res cri be d b y Dr. Ngu y eningo odfai th du rin g t he co ur se of hi s m ed ic al pra ct ic e, bu t n on e o f th e o ffi cers ask edforth os e rec or ds be fo re ch arg in g h im

with acri m e. Dep ut y Carl is le of the Gil ch ris t Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce was th e actua l
arre st in g o ffi cer. He d ie d b efo re tria l b utha d g iv ena de po si ti on whi ch was re ad in to ev id en ce. Inth atde po si ti on Carl is le de sc rib edho w th e DEA hadtar ge te d
se ve ral ph y si ci an s i n t he areafordi sp en si ng co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es witho utgi vi ng pa ti en ts a ph y si cal ex am in at io n. Itwas a ll a DEA op erat io n a ndth e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce was “

jus t the re t o a ss is t the m .” Ro be rt Yakube c was th e DEA age ntin ch arg e. Dep ut y Carl is le was t ol d b y

th e DEA age nt s t ha t a c on fid en ti al in fo rm an t ha d g on e to Dr. Ngu y en ’s off ic e an d h adgo tt ena pr es cri pt io n wi th ou t b ei ng gi ve n a p hysic al ex am in at io n. Carl is le was t he on e who wrot e o utth e aff id av itus edto
se cu re a warran t t o a rres t Dr. Ng uyen. Carl is le tes ti fie d, h owe ve r, th athe ha d
ne ve r sp ok enwith t he co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t ab ou t wh ethe r sh e h adrece iv eda ph y si cal ex am in at io n. He al so co nc ed edth athe di d n otkn ow wh atph y si cal 9co nd it io ns jus ti fie d apre sc rip ti on for Lort ab or Va li um . Dep ut y Carl is le di d n otrece iv e an y ev id en ce fr om

th e in ve st ig at io n u nt il aft er Dr. Ng uyen h adbe enarre st ed
. His on ly info rm at io n abo utth e cas e an d t he al le ge d abs en ce o f a p hysic al ex am in at io n o f th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t ca m e fro m th e DEA. He ex pl ai ne d t ha t the DEA “ to okco nt ro l o f al l the ev id en ce. The y ha d itall . All we wer e th ere f or is to workwith the m

be cau se itwas i n o ur juri sd ic ti on .” Sp eci fic al ly, he no te d t ha t the DEA too k c on tro l o f al l the
reco rd in gs an d t he tap edst at em en ts . Whe n a sk edwhy a p hysic ia n o r ph arm aci stwas n otco ns ul te d b efo re h e si gn edth e arr es t af

fid av it , Depu ty Carli sl e res po nd edth atth e “ DEA, Mr. Bob [Yakub ec] andth em

was ru nn in g t he sh ow an d t he y were d oi ng itth e way

th ey se enfit .” He te st ifi edth atif h e h adkn own th ata ph y si cal ex am in at io n h adbe en co nduc te d, h e n ev er wo ul d h av e in cl ud eda st at em en t t o t he co nt rary in t he arre st affi da vi t. Whe n a sk edwhet he r he m ad e “ an y att em ptto co nf irm th atst at em en t in de pe nd en tl y ” o r whe th er h e rel ie d “ to ta ll y onth e st at em en ts of Ag en t Yakub ec,” he rep li ed : “ Tot al ly on DEA.” Acco rd in g t o C arl is le , Yakube c sa t i n t he roo m whi le Carl is le typedup th e arr es t af fid av it
. He sh owe d i t t o Yakub ec, am on g ot he rs inth e ro om , andall ag reedth atwhatitde sc rib ed —co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es be in g d is tri bu te d wi th ou t a p hysic al ex am in at io n—was whatha d t ak enpl ace. The 10pr ob le m

is th atwas n ottru e. Ther e h adbe ena ph y si cal ex am in at io n e ach ti m e be fo re m ed ic at io n was pre sc rib ed . The aff id av itan d a rres t warran t wer e b as edon a fal se st at em en t. II . Whe n h e was wron gl y

jail edby the go ve rn m en t o f Vie tn am an d i ts ag en ts , Dr. Ngu y enha d n o re m edy bu t t o fl ee fro m

th e co un try. A s an Am eri cancit iz en , th ou gh , he h as a be tt er re m edy forth atki ndof abu se of g ov ern m en ta l p owe r. He
su ed . By th e ti m e a thi rdam en de d c om pl ai ntha d b eenfil edinth e d is tri ctco urt, Dr. Ngu y en , hi s m ed ic al pra ct ic e (s ui ng as apro fes si on al ass oc ia ti on ), an d h is wife (su in g s ol el y

as aco -o wne r of

th e p ro fes si on al ass oc ia ti on ) were a ss ert in g a nu m be r of cla im s ag ai ns t Dep ut y

Carl is le , th e Sh eri ff o f Gil ch ris t Co un ty, an d t he Uni te d S ta te s as th e em

pl oyer of DEA Age ntYakube c. Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt gr an te d t he Uni te d S ta te s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s i t o n s ov erei gn imm un it y gro un ds , th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t the Sh eri ff an d (t he est at e o f) Dep uty Carl is le wentto tri al . A jury fou ndforDr. Nguy enan d h is m ed ic al pra ct ic e o n the ir m al ic io us pro se cu ti on an d fa ls e arr es t cl ai m s ag ai ns t Dep ut y Carl is le an d t he Sh eri ff, an d i t al so fou nd fo r th em ag ai ns t Dep ut y

Carl is le on th ei r Fo urth Am en dm en t cl ai m (cal le d a“ ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m ” in th e jury ins tru ct io ns an d v erd ic t fo rm ). The ju ry ass es se d d am ag es in th e to ta l am ou ntof $ 1,8 36 ,10 0. Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt en te redjud gm en t 11ag ai ns t the de pu ty andsh eri ff i n t ha t am ou nt , th ey ap pe al ed . Whi le th ei r ap pe al
was pe nd in g, the y

an d Dr. Ng uyen s et tl ed
. All th atrem ai ns of t he laws ui t atth is po in t i s t he ap pe al by D r. Ngu y enan d hi s m ed ic al pra ct ic e fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th ei r cl ai m s ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s as Agen t Yakub ec’s em pl oyer. Tho se cla im s ar e fo r fal se arre st , fal se im pr is on m en t, an d m al ic io us pro se cu ti on . The d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he cl ai m s ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s fo r la ckof juris di ct io n s ol el y onso ve rei gn imm un it y gro un ds
. The va li di ty of th atdi sm is sa l turns on whethe r th e Uni te d St at es waiv edit s s ov erei gn imm un it y inth e Fed eral TortCla im s Act
. II I. Whe n i nt erp ret in g ast atut e, we al way s b eg in with i ts pl ai n l an gu ag e. See, e.g ., Harris v. Garn er, 2 16 F.3d97 0, 9 72 –7 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (enba nc ); I n re Grif fith, 2 06 F.3d13 89 , 13 93 (11 thCir . 20 00 ) (en ba nc ); Un it edSta te s v . Ste el e, 14 7 F .3d13 16 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (en ba nc ). Sect io n 1 34 6 o f th e FTCA pr ov id es inpa rt t ha t: [T]he d is tri ctco urts . . . sh al l h av e ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on of c iv il act io ns on cla im s ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s, fo r m on ey da m ag es . . . fo r in jury or lo ss of p ro pe rty, or p ers on al in jury or de ath c au se d b y th e n eg li ge ntor wro ng fu l ac t o r omiss io n o f an y em pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t wh il e act in g wi th inth e sc op e o f hi s o ffi ce o r em pl oym en t, u nd er ci rcu m st an ces wher e th e Uni te d S ta te s, i f a pr iv at e p ers on , wou ldbe li ab le to th e cl ai m an t i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e 12la w of t he pl ace wh ere t he actor o m is si on oc cu rred
.

28 U.S.C. § 1 34 6( b) (1 ). Thatparag rap h i s a g en eral waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y , bu t s om e o f th e wai ve r is tak enba ck inth e “ Exc ep ti on s” sec ti on of t he FTCA, whi ch pro vi de s, am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t the waiv er i n § 13 46 (b ) “ sh al l n ot ap pl y to ”: Any clai m

ba se d upo n a n a ctor o m is si on of a n e m pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t, ex erci si ng du e car e, in th e ex ecu ti onof ast atut e o r reg ul at io n, wh ethe r orno t s uc h s ta tu te or r eg ul at io n b e v al id , or b as ed up on th e ex erci se or p erfo rm an ce o r th e fai lu re t o e xe rci se or p erfo rm a d is cret io na ry

fun ct io n o r du ty on t he pa rt o f a fed eral ag en cy or a n em pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t, wh ethe r or no t the di sc ret io n i nv ol ve d be ab us ed
. Id . § 2 68 0( a). Tha t s ub se ct io n, wh ic h o fte n i s re ferr edto as t he di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ex cep ti on , gen eral ly shi el ds th e g ov ern m en t fr om to rt l iabi li ty bas edon th e act s o r omiss io ns of f ed eral ag en ci es an d e m

pl oyees wh enth ey

are ex erci si ng orpe rfo rm in g adi sc ret io na ry fun ct io n. See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Gaub ert , 49 9

2
The test to deter

mine whether

a fe dera l employ ee w as exercisinga “disc retionar y” 2 function that would invoke sover eign immunit y is as follows: The Supreme Court in [ United States v.] Gaubert [, 499 U.S. 315, 111 S. C t. 1267 (1991),] develope d a two-step te st to determine whe ther the g overnme nt’s conduct meets the discr etionary

function exception. We consider f irst whether

the conduc t involves an ele ment of judg ment or choic e, which w ill be the case unless a fe dera l statute, regulation, or policy specific ally

presc ribes a c ourse of

action embody

ing a fixed or re adily

asce rtainable standard. T he conduc t need not be c onfined to the policy or planninglevel. We then ask whe ther the judgment or choic e is grounded in c onsiderations of public policy , beca

use the purpose of the discr etionary function exception is to 13U.S. 31 5, 3 22 –2 3, 1 11 S. Ct. 1 26 7, 1 27 3– 74 (19 91 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ th e p ur po se of th e [d is cret io na ry

fun ct io n] ex cep ti on is to pre ve ntjud ic ia l s eco nd -g ue ss in g o f le gi sl at iv e an d a dm in is tra ti ve de ci si on s g ro un de d i n s oc ia l, ec on om ic , and po li ti cal po li cy

th ro ug h the m ed iu m

of a n a ct io n i n t ort, [a nd ] whe n p ro pe rly
co ns tru ed , th e ex cep ti on pro te ct s o nl y go ve rn m en ta l ac ti on s an d d eci si on s b as ed
on co ns id erat io ns of p ub li c p ol ic y ” (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). The
subs ect io n s hi el ds th e g ov ern m en t fr om li ab il it y by tak in g c la im s t ha t ar is e fro m di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io ns ou t o f th e wai ve r of so ve rei gnimm

un it y co nt ai ne d i n § 13 46 (b ). Befo re 1 97 4 t he re was als o apro vi si on in§ 2 68 0 t ha t une qu iv oc al ly barre d (b y ex cep ti ng fro m

th e wai ve r of

so ve rei gnimm

un it y ): “ Any clai m

ari si ng ou t o f
as saul t, b at te ry , fal se im

pr is on m en t, fa ls e arr es t, m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , abu se of pr oc es s, l ib el , sl an de r, m is rep res en ta ti on , dec ei t, o r in te rfer en ce wi th co nt ract
preve nt judicial second-guessingof leg islative and administrative de cisions grounded in socia l, economic, a nd political policy

through the medium of an action in tort. When established g overnme ntal policy , as expressed or implied by statute, regulation, or ag ency guidelines, allows a g overnme nt ag ent to exercise discretion, it must be presumed that the ag ent’s ac ts are grounded in policy when exercisingthat discretion. Our inquiry does not focus e ither on the subjec tive intent of the g overnme nt ag ent, or on whe ther the a g ent ac tually weighed policy considerations, but on the natur e of the actions take n and on whe ther they are susceptible to policy

analysis. Cranfor d v. United States, 466 F.3d 955, 958 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (alter ations, citations, and quotation marks omitted). 14rig ht s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 26 80 (h ) (1 97 0) . Whe th er a p art ic ul ar cl ai m th atwas b arre d be cau se itaro se ou t o f on e o f th e to rts sp eci fie d i n § 26 80 (h ) was als o b arre d b y § 26 80 (a) b ecau se itres ul te d fr om a di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n d idno t m atte r. Once ba rredwas e no ug h. So ve rei gn imm un it y wou ldbar “ an y

cla im ” ari si ng ou t o f th e cau se s o f act io n l is te d i n s ub se ct io n (h ) reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e co nduc t o f th e go ve rn m en t ag en cy

or o ffi ci al was “ di sc ret io na ry ” wit hi n t he m ean in g o f
subs ect io n (a ). See, e.g ., Bli tz v. Bo og , 32 8 F .2d59 6, 5 99 (2dCir . 19 64 ) (h ol di ng th atbe cau se subs ect io n (h ) ba rredpl ai nt iff’s fal se im pr is on m en t cl ai m , th e co urt di d “ no t h av e to pa ss up on th e g ov ern m en t’s cl ai m th atth e act io n i s b arre d be cau se th e act s co m

pl ai ne d o f were wi th in th e ‘dis cret io nary fun ct io n’ pro vi si on of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2 68 0( a)”) . Thatwas t he st atut ory si tu at io n u nt il Co ng res s ch an ge d i t i n 1 97 4. Thaty ear C on gr es s amend edth e st atut e b y ad di ng anim

po rtantpro vi so to § 2 68 0( h) , whi ch tu rn edth atsubs ect io n a ro un d a s t o s pe ci fie d c la im s ag ai ns t fed eral in ve st ig at iv e an d l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers . See Pub. L. No. 9 3- 25 3, § 2, 88 Sta t. 5 0, 5 0 (1 97 4) . Ins te adof e xc ep ti ng th os e cl ai m s fr om th e wai ve r of
so ve rei gn imm

un it y , as t he subs ect io n o rig in al ly had , th e p ro vi so in cl ud edth em withi n t he waiv er. The s pe ci fie d c la im s ar e “ an y cla im ari si ng . . . ou t o f as saul t, ba tt ery, fal se im

pr is on m en t, fa ls e arr es t, ab us e o f pr oc es s, o r m al ic io us 15pr os ecu ti on ” b as edon act s “ of in ve st ig at iv e o r la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cers of t he Uni te d S ta te s . . . .” Id. As am en de d, § 26 80 (h ) no w read s i n i ts en ti rety : The pro vi si on of thi s ch ap te r an d s ect io n 1 34 6( b) [th e g en eral waiv er of so ve rei gn imm

un it y ] of th is ti tl e sh al l n otap pl y

to

— * * * (h ) Any clai m

ari si ng ou t o f as saul t, b atte ry , fal se im pr is on m en t, fa ls e arre st , m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , abu se of p ro ces s, l ib el , sl an de r, m is rep res en ta ti on , dec ei t, o r in te rfer en ce wi th co nt ractrig ht s: Pro vi de d, Th at , with re ga rdto act s o r omiss io ns of i nv es ti ga ti ve or la w enf or cem en t o ffi cers of t he Uni te d S ta te s Go ve rn m en t, the pr ov is io ns of t hi s ch ap te r an d s ect io n 1 34 6( b) of t hi s t it le sh al l ap pl y to an y cla im ari si ng , on or a fte r th e d at e o f th e en act m en t o f th is pr ov is o, o utof a ss au lt , bat te ry , fal se im pr is on m en t, fa ls e arr es t, ab us e of pro ces s, o r m al ic io us pro se cu ti on . For t he pu rp os e o f th is subs ect io n, “ in ve st ig at iv e o r la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer” m ean s an y of fic er o f th e Uni te d S ta te s wh o i s empowe redby law to ex ecu te se arch es , to sei ze ev id en ce, o r to m ak e arr es ts for vi ol at io ns of Fed eral law.
28 U.S.C. § 2 68 0( h) . The “ da te of t he en act m en t o f th is pro vi so ” was Marc h 1 6, 19 74 . See § 2, 8 8 S ta t. at50
. The st rai gh tfo rwardm ean in g o f subs ect io n (h ) as itno w read s i s t ha t the Uni te d S ta te s h as ex pr es sl y waiv edit s s ov erei gn imm un it y forth e cl ai m s l is te d i n th e p ro vi so , whi ch in cl ud es th e cl ai m s m ad e inth is cas e. W e m us t d et erm in e, ho wev er, h ow t ha t s ub se ct io n i nt erac ts with s ub se ct io n (a ). See Wacho vi a Ban k, N.A. v. Uni te d S ta te s, 4 55 F.3d12 61 , 12 67 –6 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 6) (“ [I]n o rd er t o 16de te rm in e th e p la inm ean in g o f th e st atut e we m us t co ns id er b ot h t he pa rti cu la r st atut ory lan gu ag e atis su e an d t he lan gu ag e an d d es ig n o f th e st atut e as a who le .” (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ). The g ov ern m en t’s p os it io n wo ul d m ean th atth e waiv er o f so ve rei gn imm un it y inth e § 26 80 (h ) pr ov is o i s t ak enaway by
subs ect io n (a ) whi ch effe ct iv el y reas se rts so ve rei gn imm

un it y forcla im s b as edon di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io ns . The que st io n i s wh ethe r th e wai ve r of so ve rei gn imm un it y in§ 1 34 6( b) , whi ch is un -wai ve d t o s om e ex te ntby § 26 80 (a), i s re waiv edfor

th e cl ai m s s pe ci fie d i n § 26 80 (h )’s pr ov is o. As o ne co urt h as reco gn iz ed , th e rel at io ns hi p b etween§ 2 68 0( a) an d( h) ha s po se d s om e in te rp ret iv e p ro bl em s: Fed eral co urts have st ru gg le d s om ewh atinde ci di ng (1) th e types of co nduc t the § 2 68 0( a) d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on pro te ct s; an d (2 ) whe th er an d h ow t o app ly the ex cep ti on incas es bro ug htun de r th e in te nt io na l t ort p ro vi so fou ndin§ 2 68 0( h) . The Supr em e Co urt ha s p ro vi de d g ui da nc e in un rav el in g t he form er m y st ery; th e la tt er qu es ti on , on th e o th er h an d, re m ai ns un se tt le d. Med in a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 59 F.3d22 0, 2 24 (4t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Muc h o f th e p ro bl em is th atth e “ an y ” in subs ect io n (a ) ba tt le s t he “ any ” in subs ect io n (h ). Sect io n 26 80 (a) c ov ers “ [a]ny cl ai m ” in vo lv in g adi sc ret io nary fun ct io n, an d § 26 80 (h )
co ve rs “ an y

cla im ” ari si ng fro m

th e to rts th atare l is te d i n t ha t s ub se ct io n. We all kn ow tha t “ an y ” is all -em br aci ng an d m ean s n ot hi ng les s tha n a ll . See, e.g ., Ali v
.

17Fed . Bur eauof P ris on s, 5 52 U.S. __ _,1 28 S. Ct. 8 31 , 83 5– 36 (20 08 ); Un it ed St at es v. Go nz al es , 52 0 U.S. 1 , 5, 1 17 S. Ct. 1 03 2, 1 03 5 (1 99 7) ; Lap erri ere v . Ves taIns . Group, In c., 52 6 F .3d71 5, 7 26 (11 thCir . 20 08 ); P ric e v . Tim e, In c., 41 6 F .3d13 27 , 13 36 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Bu t wh athapp en s wh entwo “ an y s” face of f so th atth ey

can no t b ot h b e al l-e m

br aci ng ? Whi ch on e m

us t yield ? Two fu nd am en ta l ca no ns of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n, as well as t he cle ar Co ng res si on al pu rp os e b eh in d t he § 2 68 0( h) pro vi so , pro vi de th e an swe r, whi ch is th atto th e ex te ntof a ny ov erl ap an d c on fli ctbe twee n tha t p ro vi so an d s ub se ct io n (a), the pro vi so win s. Fi rs t, the § 2 68 0( h) pro vi so , whi ch ap pl ie s o nl y to si x sp eci fie d c la im s ar is in g fr om act s o f two sp eci fie d ty

pe s o f go ve rn m en t o ffi cers , is
m or e sp eci fic th anth e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on in§ 2 68 0( a), wh ic h ap pl ie s g en eral ly to cl ai m s ar is in g fr om di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io ns or dut ie s o f fed eral ag en ci es or e m

pl oyees. The can onis th ata sp eci fic st atut ory pro vi si on tru m ps a ge ne ral on e. See C on Art, In c. v. Hel lm ut h, Ob at a + Kas sabaum , Inc ., 50 4 F .3d12 08 , 12 10 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ [W] he n p res en te d wi th a po te nt ia l o ve rlap be twee n the bro ad ly sweep in g t erm s o f a s ta tu te of g en eral ap pl ic at io n t ha t ap pe ar to ap pl y to anen ti re cl as s, an d t he na rro w bu t s pe ci fic term s o f a s ta tu te th atap pl y to on ly a sub gr oup o f th atcla ss , we avo idco nf li ctbe twee n t he two by readi ng th e sp eci fic as an e xc ep ti on to th e g en eral .”); Tug All ie -B, In c. v. Un it edSta te s, 2 73 18F.3 d 9 36 , 94 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
.

Seco nd , th e § 26 80 (h ) pr ov is o was bro ug htab ou t thr ou gh anam en dm en t
en act edin19 74 , whi le th e (a) subs ect io n h as be enpa rt o f th e st atut e si nc e 1 94 6. Whe n s ub se ct io ns ba tt le , th e co nt es t g oe s t o t he y ou ng er o ne ; the can on is th ata la te r en act edpro vi si on co nt ro ls to th e ex te ntof any con fli ctwith a n e arl ie r on e. See C on Art, 5 04 F.3dat 1 21 0 (“ [W] he re two s ta tu to ry pro vi si on s wo ul d o th erwi se co nf li ct , th e ear li er en act edon e y ie ld s t o t he lat er o ne to th e ex te ntne ces sa ry to pr ev en t the co nf

li ct .”); Tug All ie -B, 2 73 F.3dat 9 48 –4 9. The se can on s o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n t ha t we ap pl y to § 2 68 0( a) an d (h )
are a n e xp res si on of c omm on sen se ap pl ie d t o t ex tu al in te rp ret at io n. Co ns id er an an al og y . A big , bu rly do orm angu ard in g t he en tra nc e to anex cl us iv e cl ub sh ou ts to a la rg e cro wd o f pe op le want in g t o g etinth atno ne of t he m m ay en te r. Laterhe sp eak s s pe ci fic al ly to a fe w peo pl e in th e cro wd an d t el ls th em to go on in . No
on e wou lddo ub t tha t wh il e th e g en eral gro up ha s b een ba rreda pr iv il eg edfew ha ve be engi ve n p erm is si on to en te r. So i t i s wi th § 2 68 0. Th e la te r an d m or e sp eci fic st at em en t i n s ub se ct io n (h ) pe rm it ti ng th e li st edcla im s t rum ps th e ear li er an d m or e g en eral on e in subs ect io n (a ) ba rri ng a br oa de r cl as s o f cl ai m s. Inth at
m an ne r th e “ an y ” in th e p ro vi so to § 2 68 0( h) win s t he face off with t he “ any ” in
subs ect io n (a ). 19The res ul t we re achby app li cat io n o f th e can on s o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n i s al so requi redby the Co ng res si on al pu rp os e b eh in d t he pro vi so to § 2 68 0( h) , whi ch
co ul d n otbe cle arer . In en act in g t ha t p ro vi so in19 74 , Con gr es s m ad e a m ajor ch an ge inth e la w reg ard in g s ov erei gn imm un it y forcert ai n ty

pe s o f cl ai m s ar is in g fro m in te nt io na l t orts by part ic ul ar ty pe s o f of fic ers . Up unt il th atti m e subs ect io n (h ), whi ch ha d b een en act edin19 46 witho utth e p ro vi so , lef t s ov erei gn im

m un it y in pl ace a s fa r as ele ve n l is te d i nt en ti on al to rts were co nc ern ed . The Th irdCir cu it ha s s umm edup th e le gi sl at iv e in te ntbe hi ndsubs ect io n (h ) as ori gi na ll y en act ed

— be fo re th e p ro vi so was a dd ed : Sect io n 2 68 0( h) ad dr es se s i ts el f pr im ari ly to i nt en ti on al to rts for whi ch Co ng res s was un wil li ng to ass um e li ab il it y . “ Thi s s ect io n [2 8 U.S.C. § 2 68 0] sp eci fie s t y pe s o f cl ai m s wh ic h wo ul d n otbe co ve red by thi s t it le . They inc lu de
. . . de li be rat e to rts su chas a ss au ltan d ba tt ery; andot he rs . . . . ” (Em ph as is supp li ed .) S.Rep . No. 1 40 0, 7 9t h Co ng ., 2dSes s., at33 (19 46 ); J ay so n, Han dl in g F ed eral TortCla im s, Vol . 2, Sec . 26 0.0 1 n . 1.
Inth e h eari ng s b efo re the Co m mit te e o n t he Ju di ci ary, Hou se of Rep res en ta ti ve s, the fol lo win g c ol lo qu y oc cu rredwith re sp ectto th is ex cep ti on : “ MR. ROB SION. On tha t p oi ntof d el ib erat e as saul t tha t i s whe re s om e ag en t o f th e Gov ern m en t g et s i n afig htwith s om e fel lo w? MR. SHEA. Yes. MR . ROBSION. Andso ck s h im ? MR. SHEA. Thatis rig ht . MR. CRAVENS. Ass um e a C.C.C . aut om ob il e ru ns in to a m anan d d am ag es hi m th enun de r th e co m

m onlaw, wh ere th atst il l p rev ai ls , is no t tha t co ns id eredanass au ltan d i s n otth e act io n b as edon ass au ltan d b at te ry ? MR. SHEA. I sh ou ldth in k n ot . I sh ou ldth in k und er o ldco m m on law ra th er tha t wo ul d b e tr es pa ss on 20th e cas e. MR. CRAVENS. Tresp as s o n t he cas e? MR. SHEA. Yes.

MR. CRAVENS. I do no t re m em be r th os e th in gs ve ry

well , bu t i t se em s t o m e th ere a re s om e cas es pre di cat edon ass au ltan d b at te ry ev enth ou gh th ey

were p ers on al in

jury cases . MR. SHEA. No; I th in k un de r co m

m on -la w pl ead in g youha ve th e sa m e wri t, b utitm ak es a di st in ct io n b etweenanass au ltan d n eg li ge nc e. MR. CRAVENS. This refe rs to a de li be rat e as saul t? MR. SHEA. Thatis rig ht . MR. CRAVENS. If h e h itso m eo ne de li be rat el y ? MR. SHEA. Thatis rig ht . MR. CRAVENS. Itis no t i nt en de d t o e xc lu de ne gl ig en t as saul ts ? MR. SHEA. No. An i nju ry cau se d b y

ne gl ig en ce co ul d b e co ns id eredun de r th e b il l.” ( Em ph as is supp li ed .) Heari ng s o n H.R. 53 73 an d H.R. 6 46 3 B efo re the Hou se Co m mit te e o f th e Ju di ci ary, 77 th Co ng ., 2n d S es s., s er. 1 3, at33 , 34 (19 42 ). Doe s t he in

jury sus ta in edby [the pl ai nt iff ] ari se ou t o f anass au ltan d ba tt ery? Ass au ltan d b at te ry by defi ni ti on are i nt en ti on al act s. In te nt io n i s t he ve ry

ess en ce o f th e to rti ou s ac t. Co ng res s i nt en de d t o ex cl ud e li ab il it y

forin juri es cau se d b y

in te nt io na l m is co nduc t an d n ot fo r ne gl ig en ce. Th is is co ns is te ntwith the st ro ng publ ic po li cy ex pr es se d i n the st atut e to waiv e imm un it y forin juri es cau se d b y ne gl ig en ce o f em

pl oyees a ndto ex cep t cl ai m s ar is in g o utof a ss au ltor ba tt ery. Gib so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 57 F.2d13 91 , 13 95 –9 6 (3 d C ir. 1 97 2) (so m e b rack et s ad de d andfoo tn ot e num

be rin g o m it te d) . Thatwas the way th in gs st oo d fo r ne arl y th irt y y ears . The n c am e two hi gh ly-publ ic iz edrai ds by feder al na rco ti cs ag en ts on th e ho m es of i nn oc en t fa m il ie s i n C ol li ns vi ll e, Il li no is . See S. Rep . No. 9 3- 58 8 (1 97 4) , rep rin te d i n 1 97 4 U.S.S.C .A.N. 278 9, 2 79 0. Bo th rai ds were co nduc te d witho utwarran ts , bo thwere b as edon m is ta ke n i nf orm at io n, an d b ot h o ccu rredon 21th e sa m e n ig htinth e sa m e to wn. Id. 3 Inth e fi rs t o f th e Co ll in sv il le rai ds fed eral ag en ts sm as he d i n t he do orof t he Gig lo tt o fa m il y ’s ho m e, br an di sh edpi st ol s, thr ew Mr. Gi gl ot to do wn an d ha nd cu ffedhi m , in te rro ga te d h im at g unpo in t, p oi nt eda pi st ol at M rs . Gig lo tt o a s sh e p le ad edforhe r hu sb an d’s l ife , andran sa ck edth e h ou se . See 1 19 Co ng . Rec. 23 24 6 (1 97 3) . Onl y

lat er d idth e ag en ts real iz e th atth ey were atth e wro ng ad dr es s an d l eav e. Id . In the ir wa ke , th ey lef t a s m as he d t el ev is io n, a b ro ke n cam era, s cat te redbo ok s an d c lo th es , scr at ch edfurni tu re, a s ha tt eredan ti qu e dr ag on , andtwo di st rau gh t p eo pl e. Id .; s ee al so id . at 1 40 84
. Late r th atev en in g fe de ral na rco ti cs ag en ts ledtwen ty-fiv e m em be rs of t he
sa m e st rik e fo rce t o t he ho m e o f th e Ask ew fam il y who li ve d n earb y . Id. at14 08 5. An ag en t fo rcedhi s way in a s M r. Ask ew tr ie d t o c lo se th e d oo r. Id. Hi s wi fe fai nt ed . Id. The off

ic ers sea rch edth e h om e an d i nt erro ga te d M r. Ask ew at gu np oi nt . Id. at14 08 5, 2 32 43 . After t he off ic ers real iz edth atth ey

were atth e wro ng ho us e, th ey

lef t. Id
.
The Collinsvil le ra ids were widely repor ted by news media . See, e.g ., In the Name of 3 the L aw, Time, Ma

y 14, 1973, at 38; L aw Enf orce ment: The Collinsvi lle Reich, Ne wswee k, May 14, 1973, at 45; Andre w H. Malc olm, DrugRaids Terr orize 2 Families–by Mistake, N.Y. Times, Apr. 29, 1973, at 1, 43. In discussing the need f or an a mendment to FTCA § 2680( h), seve ral senators introduc ed into the Cong ressional Rec ord new s acc ounts of the ra ids. In the next two para graphs of

the text of thi s opinion we draw fac ts from that part of

the re cord to show Congr ess’ unde rstandingabout what ha d happene d duringthe ra ids. 22Und er § 26 80 (h ) of th e FTCA, as itwas t he n wri tt en , so ve rei gn imm un it y ba rredth e in no cen t v ic ti m s o f th e Co ll in sv il le rai ds fro m reco ve rin g d am ag es fro m th e g ov ern m en t. See 19 74 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2 79 0. (“ The re i s n o e ffec ti ve leg al
rem edy ag ai ns t the Fed eral Gov ern m en t fo r th e actua l p hysic al da m ag e, m uc h l es s th e p ai n, s uf

feri ng an d h um il ia ti on to whi chth e Co ll in sv il le fam il ie s h av e b een subjec te d.” ) Co ng res s ad de d t he pro vi so to § 2 68 0( h) to en su re tha t fu tu re v ic ti m s of th es e k in ds of t orts in fli ct edby feder al law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers or a ge nt s wou ldha ve a da m ag es rem edy ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s. The Sen at e Rep ort re in fo rces ou r un de rs ta nd in g o f th e p ur po se of t he pr ov is o- ad di ng am en dm en t: Dur in g t he co ur se of t he se he ari ng s s ev eral in ci de nt s wer e b ro ug htto th e Co m m it te e’s at te nt io n i n wh ic h F ed eral na rco ti cs ag en ts en ga ge d in ab us iv e, il le ga l an d u nc on st itut io na l ‘no -kno ck ’ rai ds . The Co m m it te e’s am en dm en t i s d es ig ne d t o p rev en t fu tu re ab us es of t he Fed eral ‘ no -kno ck ’ st atut e (2 1 U.S.C. 8 79 ). . . . As a g en eral pri nc ip le un de r pr es en t l aw, if aFed eral ag en t v io la te s so m eo ne ’s con st itut io na l ri gh ts —fo r in st an ce, Fo urth Am en dm en t rig ht s ag ai ns t i ll eg al sea rch an d s ei zu re—th ere i s n o re m edy ag ai ns t th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t. Th is an ci en t d oc tri ne —s ov erei gn imm un it y —s tand s as a ba r. Onl y rece nt ly w as th ere e ve n arig htof a ct io n a ga in stth e o ffen di ng of fic ers th em se lv es . In t he cas e o f Bi ve ns v. Si x Un kn own Fed eral Narco ti cs Agen ts , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 (19 71 ), th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t th e Fo urth Am en dm en t an d e le m en ta ry jus ti ce re qu ire th atth ere b [e] a ri gh t o f act io n a ga in stth e Fed eral ag en ts foril le ga l s earc he s 23co nduc te d i n b adfai thor wi th ou t p ro babl e cau se . Of cou rs e, Fed eral

ag en ts are u su al ly j ud gm en t p ro of so th is is a rathe r ho ll ow re m edy . Fo r y ears sch ol ars an d c omm en ta to rs ha ve co nt en de d t ha t the Fed eral Gov ern m en t s ho ul d b e li ab le forth e to rti ou s ac ts of i ts law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers when th ey actinba d fa ith o r wit ho utleg al jus ti fic at io n. Ho wev er, the Fed eral Tort s C la im s Act(28 U.S.C. 26 71 -2 68 0) th e em

bo di m en t o f so ve rei gn imm un it y inth e Uni te d St at es Co de , pro te ct s t he Fed eral Gov ern m en t fr om li ab il it y wher e it s ag en ts co m

m itin te nt io na l t orts su ch as a ss au ltan d b atte ry . The in jus ti ce o f th i[s ] pr ov is io n s ho ul d b e m an ife st—fo r un de r th e Fed eral Tort s C la im s Acta Fed eral m ai l tru ckdri ve r cre at es di rectfed eral li ab il it y if h e n eg li ge nt ly run s d own a ci ti zen on th e st reetbu t the Fed eral Gov ern m en t i s h el d h arm le ss if afed eral na rco ti cs ag en t in te nt io na ll y

ass au lt s t ha t s am e ci ti zen inth e co ur se of a n i ll eg al ‘no- kn oc k’ rai d. . . . The Co m m it te e am en dm en t t o t he bi ll , con ta in edina ne w sec ti on 2 th ereo f, wou ldad d apro vi so at t he en d o f th e in te nt io na l t orts ex cep ti onto th e Fed eral TortCla im s Act(28 U.S.C. 26 80 (h )). The effe ctof t hi s p ro vi si on is to de pr iv e th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t o f th e de fen se of s ov erei gn imm un it y incas es inwhi ch Fed eral law en fo rcem en t ag en ts , act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f th ei r em pl oym en t, o r un de r co lo r of

Fed eral law, co m

m itan y of t he fol lo win g t orts : as saul t, ba tt ery, fal se im

pr is on m en t, fa ls e arr es t, m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , or ab us e o f pr oc es s. Th us , aft er the da te of e na ctm en t o f th is m eas ur e, in no cen t i nd iv idua ls who are s ub jecte d t o ra id s o f th e type co nduc te d in Co ll in sv il le , Ill in oi s, wi ll have a cau se of a ct io n a ga in stth e in di vi du al Fed eral ag en ts an d t he Fed eral Gov ern m en t. Fu rth erm or e, th is pro vi si onsh ou ldbe vi ewedas aco un te rp artto th e Bi ve ns cas e an d i ts pro ge nty

[si c], in tha t i t wai ve s the de fen se of s ov erei gn imm un it y so as t o m ak e th e Gov ern m en t i nd ep en de nt ly liab le in da m ag es forth e sa m e type o f co nduc t tha t i s al le ge d t o h av e o ccu rred in Biv en s (a ndforwhi ch th atcas e im po se s l iabi li ty upo n t he in di vi du al Gov ern m en t o ffi ci al s i nv ol ve d)
. . . . Thi s wh ol e m at te r was bro ug htto th e at te nt io n o f th e Co m m it te e in
24th e co nt ex t o f th e Co ll in sv il le rai ds , wher e th e la w enf or cem en t ab us es in vo lv edFo urth Am en dm en t co ns ti tu ti on al to rts . There fo re, th e Co m m it te e am en dm en t wo ul d s ub m itth e Gov ern m en t t o l iabi li ty whe ne ve r it s ag en ts actun de r co lo r of law s o a s t o i njure the publ ic th ro ug h s earc h a ndsei zu res th atare co nduc te d wi th ou t warran ts or with warran ts is su edwitho utpro babl e cau se . Howev er, the Co m m it te e’s am en dm en t s ho ul d n otbe vi ewedas l im it edto co ns ti tu ti on al to rt s itua ti on s b utwou ldap pl y to an y cas e in whi ch a Fed eral law en fo rcem en t ag en t co m m it te d t he to rt wh il e act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f hi s emplo ym en t o r un de r co lo r of Fed eral law. Id . at 2 78 9– 91
. Tak in g t he all eg at io ns of the co m pl ai ntinth is cas e as tru e, as we m us t at th is st ag e o f th e p ro ceed in gs , Agen t Yakub ec was no t ac ti ng with p ro babl e cau se whe n h e arr es te d Dr. Ng uyen, an d p ro ceed in g a ga in stth e d oc to r was m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on . This is pre ci se ly the ki ndof f actua l s itua ti on for

whi ch Co ng res s h as ex pr es sl y an d s pe ci fic al ly w ai ve d s ov erei gn imm un it y un de r § 2 68 0( h) . It i s wh at th e Co m m it te e Rep ort m ean t wh enitsai d: “ The effe ctof t hi s p ro vi si on is to de pr iv e th e Fed eral Gov ern m en t o f th e d efen se of s ov erei gnimm un it y incas es in whi chFed eral law en fo rcem en t ag en ts , act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f th ei r em pl oym en t, o r un de r co lo r of Fed eral law, co m

m itan y of t he fol lo win g t orts : as saul t, b at te ry , fal se im

pr is on m en t, fa ls e arr es t, m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , or abu se of pro ces s.” Id . at 2 79 1. To h ol d i n t hi s ca se th atth e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on insubs ect io n

25(a) t ru m

ps th e sp eci fic pro vi so insubs ect io n (h ) wou ldde featwhatwe kn ow t o b e th e cl ear p ur

po se of t he 19 74 am en dm en t. See Su tt onv. Un it edSta te s, 8 19 F.2d 12 89 , 12 97 (5t h C ir. 1 98 7) (co nc lu di ng th at“ if t he law en fo rcem en t p ro vi so is to be m or e th ananil lu so ry

—n ow you s ee i t, n ow you d on ’t—rem edy , th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on can no t b e anab so lu te ba r whi ch on e m us t cl ear t o pr oc eedun de r § 2 68 0( h) ”). Itwou ldals o m od ify the st atut e b y eit he r rem ov in g th e p ro vi so to § 2 68 0( h) , whi ch Co ng res s p utth ere, o r by rewrit in g t he word s “ an y cl ai m ” in th e p ro vi so to m ean on ly clai m s b as edon th e p erfo rm an ce o f no ndi sc ret io na ry

fun ct io ns . W e are no t au th or iz edto rewri te , rev is e, m od ify, or
am en d s ta tu to ry

lan gu ag e in th e g ui se of i nt erp ret in g i t, Al i, 1 28 S. Ct. at84 1; Artu z v . Ben ne tt , 53 1 U.S. 4 , 10 , 12 1 S . Ct. 3 61 , 36 5 (2 00 0) ; In re Hedric k, 5 24 F.3 d 1 17 5, 1 18 7– 88 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); Al br it to n v . Cag le ’s, Inc ., 50 8 F .3d10 12 , 10 17 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); Ha rri s, 2 16 F.3dat 9 76 , esp eci al ly whe n d oi ng so wou ld de featth e cl ear p ur

po se be hi ndth e p ro vi si on . W e wou ldgi ve effe ctto th e p la in
m ean in g a ndcle ar p ur

po se of t he st atut ory

lan gu ag e b y

co nc lu di ng th atso ve rei gn imm un it y do es no t b ar a cl ai m

th atfal ls withi n t he pro vi so to subs ect io n (h ), reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e act s g iv in g ri se to itin vo lv e a d is cret io na ry fun ct io n. IV. Altho ug h t he Fif

th Cir cu itag rees with o urreco nc il ia ti on of § 26 80 (a) wi th

26(h ), se e Su tt on , 81 9 F .2dat 1 29 7, fi ve ot he r ci rcu it s h av e ta ke n adi ffer en t

ap pr oa chab ou t h ow t he two subs ect io ns in te ract . They have co nc lu de d t ha t ev en cl ai m s l is te d i n the pro vi so to § 2 68 0( h) are b arre d i f th ey are b as edonth e pe rfo rm an ce o f di sc ret io na ry fun ct io ns withi n t he m ean in g o f § 2 68 0( a). See , e.g., Med in a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 2 59 F.3d22 0, 2 24 –2 6 (4 th Cir . 20 01 ); Ga sh o v . Uni te d St at es , 39 F.3d14 20 , 14 35 (9th C ir. 1 99 4) ; Gar ci a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 8 26 F.2d80 6, 80 9 (9 thCir . 19 87 ); P oo le r v. Un it edSta te s, 7 87 F.2d86 8, 8 71 –7 2 (3 d C ir. 1 98 6) ; Gray v. Be ll , 71 2 F .2d49 0, 5 08 (D.C. Cir . 19 83 ); C ab anv. Un it edSta te s, 6 71 F.2 d 1 23 0, 1 23 4– 35 (2dCir . 19 82 ). So m e o f th os e d eci si on s h av e tr ie d t o a vo idm ak in g t he subs ect io n (h ) pr ov is o m ean in gl es s b y

de fin in g “ di sc ret io na ry ” in subs ect io n (a ) so na rro wly th atitex cl ud es m os t o f th e act io ns of r an k andfil e fed eral law en fo rcem en t of fic ers th atlea d t o s ub se ct io n (h ) pr ov is o c la im s. See Garci a, 82 6 F .2dat 8 09 (“ Whi le law en fo rcem en t i nv ol ve s ex erci se of acert ai n am ou ntof d is cret io n o n th e p artof i nd iv idua l o ffi cers , su ch de ci si on s d o n otin vo lv e th e so rt o f ge ne ral iz edso ci al , eco no m ic an d p ol it ic al po li cy ch oi ces th atCo ng res s i nt en de d to ex em ptfro m to rt l iabi li ty.”); Po ol er, 7 87 F.2dat 8 72 (“ Rea di ng th e in te nt io na l to rt p ro vi so as l im it edto act iv it ie s i n t he co ur se of asea rch , a se iz ur e o r anarre st
as a pr act ic al m at te r larg el y eli m in at es th e li ke li ho odof a ny ov erl ap be twee n

27se ct io n 2 68 0( a) an d s ect io n 2 68 0( h) .”); Gray , 71 2 F .2dat 5 08 (“ [I]f th e

‘inv es ti ga ti ve or l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer’ li mit at io n i n s ect io n 2 68 0( h) is readto in cl ud e p rimaril y

pe rs on s (s uc h a s p ol ic e o ffi cers ) who se job s d o n ottypic al ly in cl ud e d is cret io na ry

fun ct io ns , itwil l b e rar e th ata su itpe rm is si bl e u nd er the pr ov is o t o s ect io n 2 68 0( h) is ba rredby sect io n 2 68 0( a)”) ; Caba n, 6 71 F.2dat 12 34 –3 5 (h ol di ng th atINS of fic ers ’ de ci si on s ab ou t wh ethe r to de ta inanali endi d
no t co ns ti tu te a di sc ret io na ry fun ct io n u nd er the FTCA an d t ha t s ov erei gn imm un it y di d n otba r th e la wsu it ). W e rec og ni ze tha t ev ery on e o f th os e d eci si on s wou ldreac h t he same resu ltth atwe do inth is cas e b ecau se Dr. Nguy en ’s cla im s ari se fro m

act s o r omiss io ns of Ag en t Yakub ec tha t tho se othe r ci rcu it s wo ul d de fin e as no n- di sc ret io na ry . St il l, we ar e n otpe rs ua de d t o fo ll ow the ir app ro ach . Non e o f th os e o th er de ci si on s ad dr es se s t he war b etweenth e “ an y s” in§ 2 68 0 (a ) an d (h ). Non e o f th em ap pl ie s t he can on s o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n u nd er wh ic h am or e sp eci fic an d
m or e rec en tl y

en act edpro vi si ontru m

ps a m or e g en eral an d e arl ie r on e. Non e o f th em co m es to gri ps with t he cle ar co ng res si on al pu rp os e b eh in d t he en act m en t o f th e p ro vi so to subs ect io n (h ). Non e o f th em pe rs ua de s u s t o aba nd on ou r co nc lu si on th atif acla im is on e o f th os e li st edinth e p ro vi so to subs ect io n (h ), th ere i s n o n eedto de te rm in e if th e act s g iv in g ri se to itin vo lv e a d is cret io na ry

28fu nc ti on ; s ov erei gn imm un ity is waiv edinan y

ev en t. V. Hav in g l ai d o utth e la w as we wo ul d d eci de itif we wer e wri ti ng on a cl ean sl at e, we tu rnno w to whet he r th ere i s an yth in g o n t he pre ced en ti al sl at e pr ev en ti ng us fro m

m ak in g o urco nc lu si ona ho ld in g. Th ere a re n o S up rem e Co urt de ci si on s i ns tru ct in g u s ab ou t the rel at io ns hi p b etween§ 2 68 0( a) an d t he pro vi so to subs ect io n (h ). W e are , of c ou rs e, bo un d t o fo ll ow p rio r pa ne l p rece de ntth atis
on po in t. The re ar e o nl y

two de ci si on s o f ou r Co urt tha t ar gu ab ly addres s t he is su e o f so ve rei gnimm

un ity foran y cla im li st edinth e p ro vi so to subs ect io n (h ) st em m in g fr om

act s o r omiss io ns of f

ed eral in ve st ig at iv e o r la w enf or cem en t of fic ers . Neit he r rea ch eda ho ld in g c on tra ry to our co nc lu si on . 4 The fir stof t ho se two de ci si on s i s B ro wn v . Uni te d S ta te s, 6 53 F.2d19 6 (5 th Cir . Uni t A Au g. 1 98 1)
. It d idin vo lv e a cl ai m , m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , th atis 5
Seibert v. B aptist, 594 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1979), is not such a de cision beca use the 4 claims in that case arose two year s befor e the e ffe ctive date of the § 2680(h) proviso, and it involved § 2680(c) . I d. at 425–28. Nor is Mesa v. United States, 123 F.3d 1435 ( 11th Cir. 1997), which involved only neg lige nce c laims and in which we specific ally ref used to specula

te about what might have ha ppened if the plaintiffs had pur sued cla ims based on the ca uses of action set for

th in § 2680(h). I d. at 1437 n.3, 1439 n.5. Nor is Mid-South Holding Co. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2000), which involved a c laim about neg lige nce in c arr ying out a sea rch instea d of any

of the intentional tort claims listed in the § 2680(h) pr oviso. I d. at 1202, 1205. In our en ba

nc dec ision Bonner

v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 5 1981), we adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to Octobe r 1, 1981. The pr eexisti ngFifth Circuit pre cede nt that the Bonne r dec ision 29li st edinth e § 26 80 (h ) pr ov is o, b utwe ha d n o o ccas io n t o d eci de an yth in g abo ut

th e in te ract io n o f th e p ro vi so an d s ub se ct io n (a ) in Bro wn b ecau se so ve rei gn imm un it y ap pl ie d re ga rd le ss . It ap pl ie d re gard le ss of s ub se ct io ns (a) an d (h ) be cau se § 1 34 6( b) it se lf p ro vi de s t ha t s ov erei gn im m un ity is waiv edon ly “un de r ci rcu m st an ces wher e th e Uni te d S ta te s, i f a p riv at e p ers on , wou ldbe li ab le to th e cl ai m an t i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e law of the pl ace wh ere the actor o m is si on oc cu rred .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 34 6( b) (1 ). The p iv ot al factinBro wn was th atth ere was no m al ic e an d a s a r es ul t the m al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im was n otva li d und er the la w of Tex as , whi ch is th e p la ce wh ere t he act s o ccu rred . 65 3 F .2dat 1 99 –2 01
. The re was , th eref

or e, no oc cas io n t o d eci de whateffe ct§ 2 68 0( a) o r (h ) wou ld ha ve ha d i f th ere wer e a v al idm al ic io us pro se cu ti on cla im . See i d. at20 1– 02 (“ W e le av e fo r an othe r da y th e que st io n o f whe th er . . . a con st itut io na l t ort ac ti on ‘aris in g o utof’ on e o f Sec ti on 26 80 (h )’s si x e nu m erat edto rts is vi ab le un de r th e Act i f sa nc ti on edby ‘ th e law of t he pl ace.’”). The ot he r po st -p ro vi so de ci si on of o urCo urt ad dr es si ng th e is su e o f
so ve rei gn imm

un it y ina la wsu itass ert in g s om e o f th e si x c la im s l is te d i n the pr ov is o t o § 26 80 (h ) is Adra s v . Nels on , 91 7 F .2d15 52 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). That
adopted a s binding pre cede nt in this circ uit includes all Unit A panel de cisions issued before October 1, 1981. United States v. Todd, 108 F.3d 1329, 1333 n.5 ( 11th Cir. 1997). 30cas e in vo lv edall eg at io ns th atINS of fic ia ls ha d u nl awfu ll y

de ta in edbl ackHait ia n refu ge es an d d is cri m in at edag ai ns t the m on th e g ro un ds of n at io na l o rig in an d
race . Id. at15 53 . The p la in ti ffs , who were ex cl ud ab le ali en s, bro ug hta la rg e 6
nu m be r of cla im s u nd er the FTCA in cl ud in g o ne s fo r ab us e o f pr oc es s an d fa ls e im pr is on m en t, wh ic h a re two o f th e cl ai m s l is te d i n t he § 2 68 0( h) pro vi so . Id. at 15 55 . W e h el d tha t the cla im s wer e b arre d b y so ve rei gnimm

un it y be cau se th ey

“ ar[o ]se fro m

th e ex erci se or t he pe rfo rm an ce o f a d is cret io nary fun ct io n o n t he pa rt o f th e g ov ern m en t an d i ts ag en ts an d . . . th e d efen da nt s ar e sh ie ld edfro m li ab il it y by the pro vi si on s o f Sec ti on 26 80 (a).” Id. Und er the fact s o f th e Adr as cas e, an d s pe ci fic al ly in the co nt ex t o f imm ig rat io n a ndth e ri gh ts of e xc lu dabl e al ie ns , we reas on edth atth e cl ai m s wer e a d ire ctatt ackona di sc ret io na ry de ci si on by the Att orne y Gene ral be cau se he ha d weig he d p ol ic y

co ns id erat io ns inde ci di ng to withh ol d p aro le forex cl ud ab le al ie ns . Id. at15 56 (“ [T]he Att orne y Gene ral is un de r no ob li ga ti on to pa ro le
ex cl ud ab le ali en s—he m ay do so inhi s d is cret io n.” (em ph as is an d quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) ). W e ex pl ai ne d tha t: Exc lu dabl e al ie ns can no t ch al le ng e th e d eci si on s o f ex ecu ti ve of fic ia ls with re gardto th ei r ap pl ic at io ns for adm is si on , asylum, or “[E] x cludable a liens are those who see k admission into t he United States but have not 6 achie ved entr

y .” Adr as, 917 F .2d at 1555. 31pa ro le on th e b as is of t he rig ht s g ua ran te edby the Uni te d S ta te s

Co ns ti tu ti on . They do h av e ri gh ts , ho wev er, t o wh at ev er p ro ces s Co ng res s— an d t hr ou gh it s re gu la ti on s an d e st ab li sh edpo li ci es , th e Exe cu ti ve Bran ch—h av e ex te nd edth em . Id . at 1 55 4. The § 2 68 0( h) pro vi so was n otev enm en ti on edinth e Adr as de ci si on . The
reas onpro babl y

is th atth e la wsu itdo es no t ap pe ar t o h av e b een bro ug htbe cau se of “ act s o r omiss io ns of i nv es ti ga ti ve or l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers of t he Uni te d St at es ,” an d i f itwas n otbro ug htbe cau se of a ct s o r omiss io ns of t ho se sp eci fic types of o ffi cers , th e p ro vi so di d n otap pl y . See 2 8 U.S.C. § 26 80 (h ). The t erm

“ in ve st ig at iv e o r la w enf

or cem en t o ffi cer” is de fin edinth e p ro vi so to m ean “ an y of fic er o f th e Uni te d S ta te s wh o i s empowe redby law to ex ecu te sea rch es , to sei ze ev id en ce, o r to m ak e arr es ts forvi ol at io ns of F ed eral law.” Id . The Adras laws ui t
was bro ug htag ai ns t o ffi ci al s o f th e Im m ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic e res po ns ib le forth e p ol ic y th atres ul te d i n d et en ti on of t he ex cl ud ab le ali en pl ai nt iff s an d app aren tl y

no t ag ai ns t ra nkan d fi le in ve st ig at iv e an d l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers . See 9 17 F.2dat 1 55 3. Acco rd in g t o the do ck etsh eetinth e Adr as cas e th e fo ll owi ng INS of fic ia ls were l is te d a s d efen da nt s: AlanC. Nels on , Co m m is si on er o f Imm ig rat io n a ndNatu ral iz at io n S erv ic e; Dori s M ei ss ne r, fo rm er Acti ng Co m

m is si on er, INS; Davi d C ro sl an d, fo rm er Gen eral Co un se l an d fo rm er 32Acti ng Co m m is si on er, INS; Hug h J . Bri en , form er Act in g As so ci at e Co m m is si on er o f INS fo r Enf or cem en t; Jo e Howe rto n, fo rm er Di stric t Di rect or Dis tri ctVI, INS; Leo na rdRo wlan d, As si st an t Di stric t Di rect or , Deten ti onan d Dep orta ti on ; Di st ric t VI, INS; th e Uni te d S ta te s; th e INS; an d J oh n Do es I–XXV. 7 See Adras v. Nel so n, No . 85 -0 19 7- CIV-Sc ot t (S .D. Fla. Ma rch 14 , 19 89 ). Eve n i f so m e o f th e Jo hnDoe d efen da nt s i n t he Adra s ca se ha d b een worki ng in ve st ig at iv e o r la w enf or cem en t o ffi cers —an d the re i s n o i nd ic at io n t ha t th ey were—th e d eci si on inth atcas e wou ldno t co ntro l thi s o ne . Reg ard le ss of who th e d efen da nt s wer e an d h ow the cla im s wer e cas t i n t ha t ca se , th e p la in ti ffs ’ gr ie va nc es were n otwith t he ag en ts who ha d m in is te ria ll y carr ie d o utth e Att orne y Gen eral ’s det en ti on po li cy bu t wi th th e Att orne y

Gene ral an d o th er h ig h ra nk in g of fic ia ls who were re sp on si bl e fo r th e ex is te nc e o f th atpo li cy . Cf. Jea n v . Nels on , 72 7 F .2d95 7, 9 67 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (“ [A]s a res ul t o f th e ex is te nc e o f in he ren t
ex ecu ti ve po wer o ve r imm ig rat io n a ndth e b ro adde le ga ti on s o f di sc ret io na ry au th or it y inth e INA, th e se parat io n- of -p owe rs do ctrin e p la ces few res tri ct io ns on ex ecu ti ve off

ic ia ls inde al in g wi th ali en s wh o c om e to th is co un try in s earc h o f adm is si on or a sylum .”). The d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the all eg at io ns inth e We take judicial notice of the docke t sheet in Adra s in order to de termine the ide ntity of 7 the def endants in that ca se. See United States v. Glover, 179 F .3d 1300, 1302 n.5 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ A cour

t may take judicial notice of its own rec ords and the r ecor ds of inferior courts.” ). 33pl ai nt iff

s’ com pl ai ntwere b as ed“ on Defen dant s’ in it ia ti ng , pl an ni ng , supe rv is in g, co or di na ti ng , andpre pa rin g t he de te nt io n p ol ic y an d s ub se qu en t d et en ti on of Pl ai nt iff s.” Se e No. 8 5- 01 97 -CIV-S co ttat 6 . The At to rn ey Gene ral , no t an y

lo cal INS ag en t, was th e so ur ce o f th e p ol ic y ab ou t wh ic h t he pl ai nt iff s co m pl ai ne d. See Adras , 91 7 F .2dat 1 55 6 (“ The di st ric t co urt n ot edth at‘ [p ]lain ti ffs were de ta in edas ares ul t o f th e Att orne y Gene ral ’s ord er re qu iri ng INS of fic ia ls to ho ld witho utpa ro le all ali en s u nabl e to est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e fo r adm is si on .’ ” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). Eve n i f th e Att orne y

Gene ral do es fitwithi n t he de fin it io n o f “ in ve st ig at iv e orlaw en fo rcem en t o ffi cer” co nt ai ne d i n the las t s en te nc e o f th e § 26 80 (h ) pr ov is o, th e Adr as de ci si on ex te nd s n o fu rth er tha n t he fact s o f th atcas e. See

8 W at ts v. Be ll So uth Tel eco m m s., In c., 31 6 F .3d12 03 , 12 07 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ [J ]udi ci al de ci si on s ca nn otm ak e la w beyon d t he fact s o f th e cas es inwhi ch th os e d eci si on s ar e an no un ced .”). The cen tra l fa ctth atde fin es th e Adr as de ci si on an d l im it s i ts sco pe is th atth e cl ai m s ar os e n otfro m anin ve st ig at iv e o r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer’s d eci si onto sea rch or a rres t o r ch arg e in a pa rti cu la r cas e b ut The Attorne y

Gene ral ha s very

broad a uthority and is empowe red to pe rfor m all the 8 functions that anyone in the De partment of Justice is authorized to perfor m except for thre e specific ally

listed functions that have no a pplication here . See 28 U.S.C. § 509 (providingthat “[a]ll functions of other

office rs of the D epar

tment of J ustice and a ll functions of ag encie s and employees of

the Depa rtment of Just ice a

re ve sted in the Attorney

Gene ral” except three listed functions). 34fro m

a ge ne ral po li cy

de ci si on m ad e inth e ex erci se of h is di sc ret io n b y a hi gh of fic ia l i n t he Exec ut iv e b ran ch . See 9 17 F.2dat 1 55 6. At l eas t wh ere t he sp eci al cir cu m st an ces pre se ntinth e Adr as cas e d o n ot
ex is t, an d t he § 2 68 0( h) pro vi so ap pl ie s t o wai ve so ve rei gn im m un it y , th e ex cep ti on to waiv er co nt ai ne d i n § 26 80 (a) i s o f no effe ct . To th e ex te ntof a ny co nf li ct , th e la te r en act edan d m or e sp eci fic subs ect io n (h ) pr ov is o tru m ps th e earl ie r an d m or e g en eral subs ect io n (a ), as Co ng res s cl earl y in te nd edth atitwou ld
. VI. Dr. Ngu y enha s b ro ug htcla im s fo r fal se im pr is on m en t, fa ls e arr es t, an d
m al ic io us pro se cu ti on ari si ng ou t o f th e act s o r omiss io ns of Ag en t Yakub ec. At th e ti m e o f th e act s i n que st io n, Ag en t Yakub ec was a fed eral in ve st ig at iv e o r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer, d efi ne d i n t he st atut e as on e “ em po weredby law to ex ecu te
se arch es , to sei ze ev id en ce, o r to m ak e arre st s fo r vi ol at io ns of F ed eral law.” Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 68 0( h) . Und er the fact s an d c irc um st an ces as a ll eg ed , Dr. Ngu y en ’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s ar e ex pr es sl y pe rm it te d b y

th e p la in lan gu ag e o f th e p ro vi so to § 2 68 0( h) . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n otha ve grant edth e Uni te d S ta te s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s o n s ov erei gn imm un it y gro un ds
. REVERSED.

35