Opinion ID: 200824
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Discretionary Function Exception: the Standard Test

Text: 28 The purpose of the discretionary function exception is to insulate certain governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy from tort liability by private individuals. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536-37, 108 S.Ct. 1954. The exception is intended to preclude judicial `second-guessing' of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy. Limar Shipping, 324 F.3d at 6 (quoting United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines ), 467 U.S. 797, 814, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984)). Thus, the discretionary function exception insulates the Government from liability if the action challenged in the case involves the permissible exercise of policy judgment. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 537, 108 S.Ct. 1954. 29 Where, as here, the government avers that it is immune from suit because the challenged conduct falls under the protection of the discretionary function exception, we must determine whether the disputed conduct involved the permissible exercise of policy judgment. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 539, 108 S.Ct. 1954. In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has established an analytical framework for determining whether the conduct warrants discretionary function immunity. 30 The court must initially identify the conduct that allegedly caused the harm. United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991). Then, to determine whether the exception applies, the court employs a two prong test. First, the court must determine whether the challenged conduct involves an element of judgment, meaning that it is a matter of choice for the acting employee. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536, 108 S.Ct. 1954. This Court has declared that conduct is non-discretionary if a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically instructed federal officials to follow a specified course of action. Muniz-Rivera v. United States, 326 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 224, 157 L.Ed.2d 134, 2003 WL 21692180 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2003) (No. 03-25). Second, the court must determine whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function was designed to shield, meaning that it involved governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536-37, 108 S.Ct. 1954. 31 In addition, courts have read the Supreme Court's discretionary function cases as denying protection to actions that are unauthorized because they are unconstitutional, proscribed by statute, or exceed the scope of an official's authority. See, e.g., K. W. Thompson Tool Co. v. United States, 836 F.2d 721, 727 n. 4 (1st Cir.1988) (It has been held that implicit in Varig and Dalehite is the proposition that a `decision cannot be shielded from liability if the decisionmaker is acting without actual authority.') (quoting Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 800 F.2d 1187, 1196 (D.C.Cir.1986)); Medina v. United States, 259 F.3d 220, 225 (4th Cir.2001) (stating that [f]ederal officials do not possess discretion to violate constitutional rights or federal statutes) (quoting United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States, 837 F.2d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 1988)); Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1002 (9th Cir.2000) ([G]overnmental conduct cannot be discretionary if it violates a legal mandate.); Myers & Myers, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 527 F.2d 1252, 1261 (2d Cir.1975) (It is, of course, a tautology that a federal official cannot have discretion to behave unconstitutionally or outside the scope of his delegated authority.). 32