Document: 515 U.S. 417115 S.Ct. 2227132 L.Ed.2d 375 Katia GUTIERREZ DE MARTINEZ, Eduardo Martinez Puccini and Henny De Papaiani, Petitioners,v.Dirk A. LAMAGNO et al. No. 94-167. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 22, 1995. Decided June 14, Syllabus * Invoking federal court's jurisdiction based on diversity citizenship, petitioners alleged in their complaint that they had suffered physical injuries property damage as a result an accident Colombia caused by negligence respondent Lamagno, employee. The Attorney, acting pursuant to statute commonly known Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1), certified behalf Attorney General Lamagno was within scope his employment at time episode. Ordinarily, upon such certification, employee is dismissed from action, substituted defendant, case proceeds under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). But this case, substitution would cause action's demise: petitioners' claims arose abroad, thus fell exception FTCA's waiver States' sovereign immunity. And immunity afford no legal ground bring back into action. See v. Smith, 499 160, 111 1180, 113 134 (1991). Endeavoring redeem lawsuit, sought court review General's scope- of-employment for if outside employment, action could proceed against him. However, District held certification unreviewable, suit. Fourth Circuit affirmed. Held: judgment reversed, remanded. 23 F.3d 402 (CA4 1994), reversed 1 Justice GINSBURG delivered opinion with respect Parts I, II, III, concluding scope-of-employment reviewable court. Pp. ____. 2 (a) As shown division lower courts open divergent interpretation question issue. Two considerations weigh heavily Court's analysis. First, herself urges review, mindful cases kind present, incentive her delegate certify marked. Second, when Government official's determination fact or circumstance example, "scope employment"—is dispositive controversy, judges traditionally strong presumption Congress intends judicial review. Review will not be cut off absent persuasive reason believe so intended. No discernible here. P. 3 (b) Congress, it composed legislated backdrop review: routinely reviewed local Attorney's Act's statutory predecessor. plain purpose override Erwin, 484 292, 108 580, 98 619 (1988), which added "discretionary function" requirement, discrete test, criterion officer's personal Although wanted employee's turn solely critical inquiry, nothing tied shows intent commit inquiry unreviewable delegate. 4 (c) Construction urges—to deny authority certification—would oblige attribute two highly anomalous commands. have accept that, whenever falls FTCA, has authorized sit judge own cause—able block way tort court, cost treasury, while avoiding litigation engage, incidentally enhancing morale—or least sparing purse —of employees. This conspicuously self-serving runs counter fundamental principle one should cause, been disavowed States. 5 (d) equally perplexing, Lamagno's proposed reading cast Article III role petty functionaries, persons required rubber-stamp decision scarcely disinterested executive officer, but stripped capacity evaluate independently whether correct. strange course becomes all more surreal adds scene absence any obligation part conduct proceedings, give plaintiff opportunity speak question, notice she considering explanation resists ascribing intention place untenable position having automatically enter judgments decisions evaluate. 6 (e) language far clear. Section 2679(d)(2) provides removal state defendant certification. states explicitly "certification shall conclusively establish office purposes removal." (Emphasis added.) Notably, contains statement regard substitution. prescription tends favor Counselling however, commanding force word "shall": "Upon . ., civil proceeding deemed party defendant." 2679(d)(1) (emphasis added). reasonably susceptible interpretations, adopts accords favoring tradition certifications, anomalies attend foreclosure 7 GINSBURG, J., STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, BREYER, JJ., joined, Part IV, joined. filed concurring judgment. SOUTER, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA THOMAS, 8 Isidoro Rodriguez, Alexandria, VA, petitioners. 9 Malcolm L. Stewart, Washington, DC, respondent. 10 Andrew J. Maloney, New York City, Lamagno. 11 Michael K. Kellogg, amicus curiae, invitation Court. 12 Court, except IV. 13 When sued wrongful negligent act, Employees Liability Reform Compensation 1988 (commonly Act) empowers "was incident out claim arose. ." 2679(d)(1). Upon defendant. then governance (FTCA), ch. 753, 60 Stat. 812, 842. Generally, unfold much do other employers who concede respondeat superior liability. If, FTCA shields suit, may left without party. 14 illustrative. allegedly employment" episode Once brought asserted immunity, because giving rise occurred abroad excepts "[a]ny arising foreign country." 2680(k). plaintiffs (petitioners here) plaintiffs' unreviewable. We reverse hold 15 Shortly before midnight January 18, 1991, Barranquilla, Colombia, car driven Dirk special agent Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), collided car. Petitioners, are citizens allege intoxicated passenger, unidentified woman, 16 Informed diplomatic shielded suit him Eastern Virginia, district where resided. Alleging driving accident, compensation damage.1 In response, accident. customary, stated reasons determination.2 instructed: 17 arose, commenced provisions title references thereto, 18 Thus, rejection released litigation; furthermore, he again pursued damages "same subject matter." 2679(b)(1). Replacing become sole 19 certifications occasion contest. While relieves responsibility, confront instead financially reliable demise action: "ar[ose] country," 2680(k), 2679(d)(4) (upon "shall same manner limitations exceptions applicable those actions"). Nor allow 20 To keep alive, avoid fatal consequences unrecallable asked Petitioners maintained accident; contrary, argued, groundless untrustworthy. Following precedent, Johnson Carter, 983 F.2d 1316 (CA4) (en banc), cert. denied, 510 ----, 114 57, 126 27 (1993), App. 7-9. unadorned order, (1994). 21 Circuits divide sharply Parting Circuit, most Courts Appeals amenable review.3 granted certio- rari resolve conflict, 513 --- ---- (1994),4 we now Circuit's II 22 encounter familiar questions: line drawn; decides. firmly answered first question. "Scope sets line. 2679(b)(1); If inside line, suit; personally answerable. then, decides side falls: unreviewably or, contested, did address precise issue unambiguously, all. shows, is, "who decides" confront, interpretation. our analysis, them outset. government circumstance—for —is generally Instead, "strong review." Bowen Michigan Academy Family Physicians, 476 667, 670, 106 2133, 2136, 90 623 (1986); see id., 670-673, S.Ct., 2135-37; Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140, 87 1507, 1511, 681 (1967). Chief Marshall long ago captured essential idea: 24 "It excite some surprise if, laws principle, furnished department whose appropriate duty decide questions right, only between individuals, individuals; ministerial officer might, discretion, powerful process leaving [the claimant] remedy, appeal country, unjust. anomaly does exist; imputation cannot legislature States." Nourse, 34 (9 Pet.) 8, 28-29, L.Ed.31 (1835). 25 Accordingly, "will unless there Congress." Laboratories, U.S., 1511 (citing cases). restricting access fog B 26 scope-of- predecessor, Drivers Pub.L. 87-258, 1, 75 539 (previously codified 2679(d) (1982 ed.)). Similar narrower scope, made exclusive remedy motor vehicle accidents involving employees employment. 2679(b) like scheme, though applied driver removed were control; restore its original status. See, e.g., McGowan Williams, 1239, 1242 (CA7 1980); Seiden States, 537 867, 870 (CA6 1976); Levin Taylor, 464 770, 771 (CADC 1972). wrote covers just drivers, legislators mind. That surely make final arbiter "scope-of-employment" contests. (1988). Westfall, gain common law tort, show (1) (2) performing discretionary function. Id., 299, 585. reacted quickly delete finding unwarranted imposition, "created immediate crisis prospect liability threat protracted entire workforce." 2(a)(5), 102 4563. trained objective: "return status prior decision." H.R.Rep. 100-700, p. notably concerned significance inquiry—that alone. 2(b), 4564 (purpose "protect torts committed employment"). legislation meant delegate, alter fundamentally answer C 29 us Not silence, determinations check. At decision, executive's 30 typical certifying enables maintain relief certifying, financial interest, exposing itself employer admits acted Restatement (Second) Agency 219 (1958). 31 situation alters radically, unusual us—that involves FTCA.5 retains disarms plaintiffs. They nor pursue 166-167, 1185. qualify declaration Government's interest: expose liability, 32 impetus overwhelming one, General, siding petitioners, doubt comprehends. whom delegated refuses can matter alleging failure certify. 2679(d)(3). oppose very dissent suggests, post, ____; win lose, immunity; hence, litigate employee—thereby consuming precious resources litigating benefit plaintiff. Inevitably, feel tug certify, even merits cloudy, thereby "do favor," both well, borne solely, perhaps quite unfairly, 33 argument unreviewability instance up mainstay system government. Madison spoke precisely point Federalist 10: "No man allowed interest certainly bias judgment, and, improbably, corrupt integrity. With equal, nay greater reason, body men unfit parties time. 10, 79 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). 35 re Murchison, 349 133, 623, 625, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955) (Black, J.) ("[O]ur always endeavored prevent probability unfairness. end permitted try outcome."); Spencer Lapsley, 61 (20 How.) 264, 266, 902 (1857) (recognizing maxim); also Publius Syrus, Moral Sayings 51 (D. Lyman transl. 1856) ("No cause."); B. Pascal, Thoughts, Letters Opuscules 182 (O. Wight 1859) ("It equitable W. Blackstone, Commentaries *91 ("[I]t unreasonable determine quarrel."). 36 sum, congressional product issue, sits "judge cause"; noted, disavows extraordinary, supra, ____, n. 4. Recognizing hardly positioned act impartially, reads 37 judge, despite apparent conflict correspondingly assigned work. automatically, dismissed. key presented—scope —however contestable fact, receive audience. more, less, than convert fair proceeding, indeed, proceeding. She need "scope" 38 free scheme operates participation. Cf. 904 (authorizing settlement "arise country connection operations [DEA] abroad"). different instructing Klein, 80 (13 Wall.) 128, 146, 519 (1872) (Congress "prescribe rules Judicial Department pending it"). resist position.6 39 return now, detail, language, overcomes attending 40 removal, 2679(d)(1)-(3),7 work together assure matter, application resolved end, specifically allows requests denied contest denial initiated defendant-employee's petition, remove forum. Ibid. 41 already (as parties' diverse citizenship), where, originated forum, 2679(d)(2). 42 next instructs meaning instruction, view what emphasized words import. sentences Next, certificate conclusive It follows, conclude, determinative properly checked i.e., first, word. 43 construction draw [be conclusive] removal" 2679(d)(2).8 emphasizes "shall" statement: Any "shall,"9 urges, dispelled further feature: provided plaintiff's behest. fail provide challenges plaintiffs,10 underscores, prominently refusals behest defending view, plainly intended one-sided check call employee, call. 44 recognize sides tendered plausible constructions text interpreters found McHugh University Vermont, 966 67, 72 (CA2 1992) ("[T]he viewed whole, ambiguous."); Arbour Jenkins, 903 416, 421 1990) whole [are] ambiguous regarding reviewability certification."). Indeed, initially took but, consideration, changed position. Brief Because interpretation, adopt traditional understandings basic principles: mechanical set render. Under reading, employment—a official, compelling grant—does correct IV 45 Treating substitution, ultimately argues, "raise[s] potentially serious problem." Kellogg Amicus Curiae 29. rejected, concludes resubstituted support jurisdiction. last-pressed largely drives dissent. 46 itself, note, presents specter problem. instituted court; citizenship gave entirely secure basis filing 47 event, think problem describes grave one. There longer once category hypothesizes, nonfrivolous time, FTCA. Whether significant question—and designed aired "raises [a] questio[n] substantive outset," "clearly 'arises under' law, term used Art. III." Verlinden B.V. Central Bank Nigeria, 461 480, 493, 103 1962, 1971, 76 81 (1983). 48 adjudicating scope-of-federal-employment "at inevitably facts relevant misconduct, matters bear Mine Workers Gibbs, 383 715, 725, 86 1130, 1138, 218 (1966) (approving exercise pendent "a nucleus operative fact" "ordinarily expected tried] proceeding"). "[C]onsiderations economy, convenience fairness litigants," 726, 1139, reasonable proper forum beyond invested initial contest.11 49 preserving "approach[ed] limit" jurisdiction, ____—and —we find involved here less ominous declaring uncontestable: apparent, binding insulating depriving meritorious claims. weighed competing considerations, read confer extraordinary authority. assume stamp "Dismissed" interested unchallengeable representation. fairly construed present objections 50 For stated, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 52 ordered. 53 Justice, THOMAS join, dissenting. 54 One instinctively opens door individual complains ready door. however bounds policy, great weight interpretive evidence misread Congress's policy. I respectfully 55 principal textual statements examination today perfectly straightforward. 2679(d)(1); ("[u]pon FTCA]. ."). Notwithstanding observation contexts leave bit slippery, ante, 9, repeatedly recognized normally uncompromising directive carries. Monsanto, 491 600, 607, 109 2657, 2662, 105 512 (1989); Anderson Yungkau, 329 482, 485, 67 428, 430, 91 436 (1947); Griggs Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 56, 61, 400, 403, 74 225 (1982) (per curiam ); Association Civilian Technicians FLRA, 1150, 1153 1994) ("The 'shall' indicates command discretion person instructed carry directive"); Black's Law Dictionary 1375 (6th ("As statutes imperative mandatory"). hint wobbling quoted language,1 normal mandatory best finds elusive (ante, ____.) manifest confirmed additional consonance jurisdictional assumptions. 56 not, course, included express provision certifies acts charged official duties. effect, (1961), combined authorization disappointed plaintiff, ibid. ed.)),2 makes especially good drop feature system, usual unconditional message. Brewster Gage, 280 327, 337, 115, 118, 457 (1930) deliberate selection differing earlier Acts change intended"); 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory 51.02, 454 (4th 1984). conclusion gains presence 2679(d)(3) ("[i]n event refused section, trial petition Providing another implies statute's silence. Russello 16, 23, 104 296, 300, 78 (1983) ("Where includes particular section omits presumed intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion"); Naftalin, 441 768, 773-774, 2077, 2081-2082, 624 (1979). 57 Even these textually grounded implications enough confirm consequence warn away treating review- able. recognizes equivocal about after never system: removal," concedes, supposes retain over state-law nondiverse determining (and States's defendant) improper. problem, reasoning, requiring rejecting implicate way. declined recent invitations define outermost limit "Arising Under" Clause Constitution,3 Mesa California, 489 121, 136-137, 959, 968-969, (1983), must approach limit, cross This, adhering practice declining construe testing presented sound alternative. 137, 969, citing Califano Yamasaki, 442 682, 693, 2545, 2553, 176 58 departs practice, however. looks solace theory issued (temporary) appearance suffices forever later rejects resubstitutes Ante, reasons, sufficient " 'considerations litigate,' quoting (1966), 59 fallacy appears soon recalls (which establishes federal-question jurisdiction) exclusively dependant challenge equivalent party, (on theory) merely example necessary rule argue, does, justifies retention bearing overlaps, therefore tantamount saying supplies challenge. simply obliterates distinction challenge, challenged lose: tortious fall will, require were. overlap going underlying claimed inevitable view. right meaningless, notion limitation. cure disease kill concept entertain. aberrant Congress; impossible realize expressly considers refusal (raised employee-defendant) litigated contests thought revealed none exists latter former. obvious doubt. assumed basis, entitled this, conclusive. couched terms, contrasting predecessor statute, contained itself. contrary tenacity assert elsewhere invites difficult wholly unnecessary constitutional adjudication limits These arguments measure them. 62 raises three counterpoints straightforward Act. suggests negatively authorize results drafting redundancy. creates oddity limiting certain cases. Finally, invokes judging one's self. 63 redundancy argument, said, facially plausible. begins general redundant drafting, Mackey Lanier Collection & Service, Inc., 486 825, 837, 2182, 2189, 100 836 (1988); Park 'N Fly, Inc. Dollar 469 189, 196-197, 658, 662-663, 83 582 (1985), follows render probably unintended rejected. Applying here, purposes, sentence 2679(d)(2), since necessarily 1346(b). 8. making meaning; negative implication 64 Sometimes, redundancy, rendering inference too shaky trusted. Nat. Ore. Independent Ins. Agents America, 508 - 2173, 2184-2185, 124 (1993). takes 539, superseded passage current 100-694, 4563-4567. source remedies resulting operation ed.). Like during claim, well Unlike directed "on motion remand merits," "one available appeals permit hear motions challenging determination. Van Houten Ralls, 411 940, (CA9), 396 962, 436, 426 (1969); Daugherty 427 F.Supp. 222, 223-224 (WD Pa.1977); accord, 869 Given permissibility order raise post-removal old superseded, eliminated, sensibly seen practical value clear over.4 65 How assess redundancy? On my take understandable inelegance drafting. could, alternative, confirmation brings consequent certainty Is likely indulged little foist pointless onto courts? choice, forgiven. 66 second counterpoint reluctant leaves real do. function dismissal. Of bulk sequence envisioned materialize. determination, still plenty either amount disputed, 2680 turns disputed facts. Only rare presenting air-tight identified occur. hard relieve work, given amply conclusiveness. relies "the administrative action," regulations agencies promulgated 2136-2137, presumption, usually agency carrying effect apply equal narrow factual related tangentially, all, primary duties; determines affiliated Department, occasion. Bowen, 668-669, 2134-2135, considered Secretary Health Human Services non-reviewable promulgate Medicare distribution regulations, 138-139, 1510, Health, Education Welfare drug labeling regulations. 68 control rests invocation different, cause. apt (who responsibilities Attorneys, CFR 15.3(a) (1994)) nearly million moment. characteristically perceptible visit National (each influence her). circumstances save employer, face certification; remain exposure enjoy easy issuing possibility institutional self de minimis,5 likelihood improper attenuated analogize protect himself otherwise hands disregard established process. quotes length condemnations self-interested judgments, citations it, lacks self-interest 'would [her] ' 69 applicable, controlling reference "specific specific legislative history" "inferences drawn whole," Block Community Nutrition Institute, 467 340, 349, 2450, 2455-2456, 270 (1984), "substantial doubt" design, 351, 2456. substantial 70 affirm. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 282, 287, 499. DEA 84 1284, amended, 904, authorizes abroad." referred yet claim. implied 15. read: "I, Richard Cullen, 2679, virtue vested me Appendix C.F.R. 15.3 (1991), hereby investigated plaintiff[s'] based. information allegations complaint, Dirk. America above action." 1-2. Compare (1993); Garcia 609, suggestion rehearing en banc granted, 612 (CA5 1994); Aviles Lutz, 887 1046, 1048-1049 (CA10 1989) (certification reviewable), Nasuti Scannell, 906 802, 812-814 (CA1 1990); 71-75 1992); Melo Hafer, 912 628, 639-642 (CA3 1990), aff'd grounds, 502 21, 112 358, 116 301 (1991); Hamrick Franklin, 931 1209 (CA7), 869, 200, 159 Brown Armstrong, 949 1007, 1010-1011 (CA8 1991); Meridian Int'l Logistics, 939 740, 744-745 (CA9 S.J. Ranch, Lehtinen, 913 1538, 1543 (1990), modified, 924 1555 (CA11), 813, 62, Kimbro Velten, 1501 pending, 94-6703 reviewable). accord invited brief argue below. Mr. accepted appointment fulfilled responsibility. Several compensatory regimes relief. Kosak 465 848, 858, 1519, 1525-26, 860 (1984) (one rationale "not extending coverage [FTCA] suits adequate available"). 2680(c) (excluding assessment collection tax customs duty"); 2680(d) by" Public Vessels "relating admiralty States"); 2680(e) omission administering of" Trading Enemy Act); Jayson, Handling Claims: Administrative Remedies 13-8, 13-25, 13-43 13-44 (1995) (explaining exclusions available). reality decisionmaker scant rubber decisionmaker's reply "rare cases." Post, dispute centers fitting description "rare." say cases, indeed offices misused. pertinent part: "(1) "(2) State bond embracing pending. Such removal. "(3) A copy served accordance Rule 4(d)(4) Rules Civil Procedure. court." construction, do, insulate overturned, firm ever present—the governs case. Though means "must," writers sometimes use, misuse, mean "should," "will," "may." D. Mellinkoff, Mellinkoff's American Legal Usage 402-403 (1992) ("shall" "may" "frequently treated synonyms" depends context); Garner, Modern (to published, 2d 1995) ("[C]ourts virtually every English-speaking held—by necessity —that contexts, vice versa."). use authorize, require, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 16(e) following pretrial conference modified injustice.") added); Crim.Proc. 11(b) (A nolo contendere plea due consideration views public effective administration justice.") argues foreclose omitted authorizing reason. appeared court: "Should hearing provision, thrust remands, decided needless shuttling another—a evident "conclusiv[e] tells Congress' concerning dissent, moreover, draws inconsistent inferences Omission forecloses review; rather, achieve purpose, says, step adding charges finish "implies tenacity," losers win. dissent's abstract unrelenting logic, flight assign actions genuine solution class cases: lose. above-stated disagree. Goldberg-Ambrose, Protective Jurisdiction Courts, UCLA L.Rev. 542, 549 ("If relationships relies] federally created, small part, arises article independent protective theory."). djQ I-III agree General) judicially reviewable. join discussion resolves notes, until so. ordinarily questions, discussed possible X-Citement Video, 115 464, 471-472, 130 372 (1994); Rust Sullivan, 500 173, 223-225, 1759, 1788-1789, 233 (1991) (O'CONNOR, dissenting). reversing Appeals' deciding future important canon avoidance day. described detail several principles, including prohibition allowing anyone 'to cause,' ____ (quoting ed., Madison)), peculiarity inherent "assigned work," "sound drafting," (SOUTER, dissenting); direction. confluence principles persuades arise reversal nonetheless course. examples taken limited "only." 9. similar limitation prerequisite originating perforce 2679(d)). "The Power extend Cases, Equity, Constitution, Laws Treaties made, Authority. Const., 2, cl. 1. joined 10. substance, credit intellectual discrimination. footnote sells short: isolation, foreclosed conclusiveness doubt; each point, various items supplied comparison pointing whatever support. tries minimal "conflict interest," derived "impetus [that is] overwhelming," said fear appear depending frailty Attorneys. sees attorneys complaisant, lawyers irresponsibly preparing retained

Category: 8