Court Opinion

ID: 9482482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:51:44.753421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:01.530928
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result reached in this case. I write separately to express my disagreement with Brown v. Armstrong, 949 F.2d 1007 (8th Cir.1991), referred to in our opinion. Under the plain words of 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) (1988), “[u]pon certification ... the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.”
The clear language of the statute ends the matter. The concession by the Department of Justice that the courts may look behind the “scope-of-employment” certification on the issue of party substitution, constitutes, if accepted, a statutory amendment not within the authority of the Attorney General or any of his subordinates.