Opinion ID: 2621771
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Feres Doctrine

Text: In Feres v. United States , the United States Supreme Court held that service members cannot bring tort suits against the federal government for injuries that arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. [6] The Court reached this conclusion in spite of the fact that under the FTCA the federal government had generally waived its sovereign immunity. The FTCA rendered the federal government liable for the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment. [7] The Court has explained that the Feres doctrine is premised upon the concern for the peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors, the effects of the maintenance of such suits on discipline, and the extreme results that might obtain if suits under the Tort Claims Act were allowed for negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty. [8] While thus limited at its inception, the Feres doctrine has been expanded to preclude a great variety of suits in federal court over the years. (1) It has been held to bar a negligence suit against the United States brought by the mother of a soldier who was murdered by another soldier while the victim was off-base and off-duty; [9] (2) an indemnification suit against the United States brought by a military subcontractor regarding a negligently manufactured aircraft ejection seat; [10] and (3) a suit against the United States brought by the widow of a Coast Guard helicopter pilot, which alleged that civilian Federal Aviation Administration employees negligently caused the pilot's helicopter crash. [11] And while it has expanded in application, the Feres doctrine has been supported by a dwindling number of the members of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia, dissenting in Johnson and speaking for a four-member minority, noted that the FTCA does not, on its face, generally preclude suits by military personnel. [12] Moreover, he argued that the plain language of the FTCA rendered the United States liable to all persons, including servicemen, injured by the negligence of Government employees. [13] Addressing the government's argument that the Feres doctrine was needed to maintain military discipline and morale, Justice Scalia ironically noted that barring recovery in tort by military personnel might adversely affect military discipline. After all, the morale of [Johnson's] comrades-in-arms will not likely be boosted by news that his widow and children will receive only a fraction of the amount they might have recovered had he been piloting a commercial helicopter at the time of his death. [14] The Feres doctrine has also been heavily criticized [15] and only reluctantly applied [16] in the federal circuit courts.