Court Opinion

ID: 9498754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:27:22.979054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:03.272861
License: Public Domain

KING, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Although I appreciate the panel majority’s thoughtful analysis of the general purposes of the Tort Claims Act and the various canons of statutory construction, I view such an analysis as unnecessary to resolve this appeal. In my view, the plain meaning of the phrase “any other law enforcement officer,” as found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(e), is just that — any other law enforcement officer. As we have consistently recognized, when statutory language is plain and unambiguous, our inquiry is at its end, and we then simply apply the statute according to its terms. See Stiltner v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 74 F.3d 1473, 1482 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) (“If the [statutory] language is plain and unambiguous, we look no further.”).
The majority finds ambiguous the phrase “any other law enforcement officer,” drawing its view from the fact that it is found in a statute principally concerning the Government’s customs and excise activities.* However, that fact alone is not enough to render ambiguous an otherwise unambiguous phrase. In ruling that the immunity protections accorded the Government and its officials by § 2680(c) does not reach the detention of property claim in this proceeding, the panel majority essentially adds the words “acting in a customs or excise capacity” to that provision’s concluding phrase, “any other law enforcement officer.” Our task in the judiciary, of course, is to interpret a statute as enacted — not to rewrite it.
Although I am a lone voice on this panel, I am not alone in espousing this position. Six of the nine courts of appeal to have addressed this issue agree with my view. See Halverson v. United States, 972 F.2d 654, 656 (5th Cir.1992) (concluding that “plain language” of § 2680(c) encompasses property detentions by law enforcement officers acting in any capacity); see also Bramwell v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 348 F.3d 804, 806-07 (9th Cir.2003); Hatten v. White, 275 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir.2002); Cheney v. United States, 972 F.2d 247, 248-49 (8th Cir.1992); Schlaebitz v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 924 F.2d 193, 194-95 (11th Cir.1991); Ysasi v. Rivkind, 856 F.2d 1520, 1524-25 (Fed.Cir.1988).
If Congress had intended § 2680(c) to apply only to those law enforcement officers acting in a customs or excise capacity, it could, and would, have done so explicitly. Because it failed to do so, I would have our Court adopt the majority view — -that adhered to by the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits— and enforce § 2680(c) according to its plain terms; withholding jurisdiction over (and according sovereign immunity for) claims arising out of detentions of property by a federal law enforcement officer acting in any capacity. In this proceeding, Andrews, a federal prisoner, seeks to sue the United States for an alleged property loss caused by an officer of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In my view, and in the view of six of our sister circuits, such an officer is “any other law enforcement officer” under § 2680(c), and the United States is thus entitled to claim sovereign immunity on the cause of action asserted here. See *230Bramwell, 348 F.3d at 806-07 (according immunity to United States under § 2680(c) for acts of Bureau of Prisons officer). I would therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Andrews’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I respectfully dissent.

 Although the majority does not expressly conclude that the phrase "any other law enforcement officer” is ambiguous, it does so by implication in applying the canons of statutory construction. It is settled law that we only apply the canons of construction if we first conclude that the statutory language is ambiguous. See Stiltner, 74 F.3d at 1482.