Court Opinion

ID: 9497474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:52:14.31058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:13.036101
License: Public Domain

DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The majority holds that the statutory text and the legislative history of the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA), 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 741-52 (2000), demonstrate that Congress did not exclude discretionary functions from the SIAA’s express waiver of sovereign immunity. With this conclusion, I completely agree.1 My colleagues proceed, however, to “read into” the SIAA sovereign immunity waiver a discretionary function exception. Ante at 334, 338, 343, 348. Apparently, they believe that separation-of-powers principles somehow preclude us from applying the SIAA as it was “clear[ly] and 'unequivocally]” written. Id. at 344. From this holding, I must respectfully dissent.
I.
At first blush, I had thought that the Government’s arguments that Congress intended to exclude discretionary acts from the SIAA’s waiver of sovereign immunity might carry the day. After all, a number of our sister circuits have found such arguments persuasive. See, e.g., Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. United States, 919 F.2d 888, 890-91 (3d Cir.1990); Robinson v. United States (In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig.), 891 F.2d 31, 34-35 (2d Cir.1989); Williams v. United States, 747 F.2d 700 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam), aff'g, *358Williams ex rel Sharpley v. United States, 581 F.Supp. 847 (S.D.Ga.1983); Canadian Transp. Co. v. United States, 663 F.2d 1081, 1086 (D.C.Cir.1980).
The majority, however, engages in a far more nuanced analysis than our sister circuits. Writing for the majority, Judge Trader carefully examines not only the text and legislative history of the SIAA and Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680 (2000), but also relevant canons of statutory construction. He concludes that to hold Congress intended the SIAA waiver of sovereign immunity “to be subject to an exception for discretionary functions” would be untenable. Ante at 340. Judge Trader’s thorough discussion of these issues for the majority is completely persuasive; indeed, I find his reasoning to be unassailable.
This holding would seem to me to end the matter. That the SIAA waiver of sovereign immunity plainly does not include, and Congress did not intend it to include, a discretionary function exception would seem to require a court to simply apply the Act without the exception. The majority’s insistence on “reading]” a discretionary function exception “into” the SIAA, ante at 334, 338, 343, 348, particularly after its excellent statutory analysis, puzzles me.
Of course, a court can “read into” an ambiguous statute a provision necessary to save it from a declaration of unconstitutionality. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689, 696-98, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (reading a reasonableness limitation into the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to avoid its constitutional invalidation). In the case at hand, however, the majority has expressly held the SIAA waiver of sovereign immunity is not ambiguous, but rather “clear and unequivocal.” Ante at 340. Thus, it cannot rely on the constitutional avoidance doctrine. See Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 134, 122 S.Ct. 1230, 152 L.Ed.2d 258 (2002) (holding that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance “has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Absent reliance on this doctrine — or any indication (and there is none here) that the plain meaning of a statute would lead to results that are absurd or contrary to Congress’s purpose — judges have no business “read[ing]” provisions “into” statutes. Ante at 334. Rather, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized courts’ “duty to refrain from reading a phrase into the statute when Congress has left it out.” Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993); see, e.g., United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 490, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001) (refusing to “read into” the Controlled Substances Act a medical necessity defense available at common law); Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 15-16, 121 S.Ct. 1060, 149 L.Ed.2d 87 (2001) (refusing to “read an ‘Indian trust’ exemption into” the Freedom of Information Act when there was “simply no support for the exemption in the statutory text”); Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-33, 118 S.Ct. 285, 139 L.Ed.2d 215 (1997) (refusing to “read[ ] ... into” 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a) the “intent to defraud” requirement of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(d) when “nothing in the text, structure, or history of § 1097(a) warranted] importation” of such a requirement, and noting that “this Court ordinarily resists reading words into a statute that do not appear on its face”); United States Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 154, 109 S.Ct. 2841, 106 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989) (refusing to “read into” the Freedom of Information Act “a disclosure exemption that Congress did not it*359self provide”); Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 826, 836-37, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988) (refusing to “read into” ERISA § 614(a) a limitation expressly included in another ERISA provision); Burlington N.R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employees, 481 U.S. 429, 447, 107 S.Ct. 1841, 95 L.Ed.2d 381 (1987) (refusing to “read ... into the silence of’ the Railway Labor Act a limitation on union self-help that existed at the time the Act became law); United States v. Pa. Indus. Chem. Corp., 411 U.S. 655, 663-64, 93 S.Ct. 1804, 36 L.Ed.2d 567 (1973) (refusing to “read into” § 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 a provision found elsewhere in that Act and in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1905).
In a holding especially relevant here, the Court rejected the view of several courts of appeals and held that a “reasonably necessary” qualification should not be “read into” a statutory provision. Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 330, 106 S.Ct. 1871, 90 L.Ed.2d 299 (1986). In another case that resonates here, the Court refused to read into one statute an exception from another “without an affirmative indication” that Congress intended this, especially when doing so would, as here, “carve a substantial slice” from the statutory coverage. Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U.S. 239, 247, 93 S.Ct. 477, 34 L.Ed.2d 446 (1972). Repeatedly, the Court has cautioned that federal courts are simply “not at liberty to create an exception where Congress has declined to do so.” Hallstrom v. Tillamook Co., 493 U.S. 20, 27, 110 S.Ct. 304, 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989); accord Freytag v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 501 U.S. 868, 873-74, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991).
In short, given the majority’s express holding that the evidence here does not show that Congress intended to incorporate a discretionary function exception into the SIAA, Supreme Court precedent dictates that we not “read into” the Act such an exception. Indeed, the Court has stated that to do so absent any such evidence would “constitute standardless judicial lawmaking.” Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 762, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980).
II.
Without acknowledgment of this binding precedent, the majority relies only on asserted “separation-of-powers principles” to “read into” the SIAA’s waiver of sovereign immunity a discretionary function exception. The majority finds support for its conclusion that separation-of-powers principles require its extraordinary “reading in” of a discretionary function exception in two sources. Neither provides any basis for ignoring the established limits of the constitutional avoidance doctrine or the Supreme Court’s repeated admonitions that judges not read exceptions or qualifications into unambiguous statutes.
A.
First, the majority looks to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 808, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984). There, the Court discussed the policy concerns motivating Congress to include an express discretionary function exception in the FTCA waiver of sovereign immunity, as follows:
Congress wished to prevent judicial ‘second-guessing’ of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort. By fashioning an exception for discretionary governmental functions, including regulatory activities, Congress took steps to *360protect the Government from liability that would seriously handicap efficient government operations.
Id. at 814, 104 S.Ct. 2755 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
From this statement, the majority draws two conclusions: (1) the statement assert-edly “makes it clear that the [express discretionary function] exception [in the FTCA] is a statutory embodiment of [constitutional] separation-of-powers concerns”; and (2) when this is understood as the “purpose of the discretionary function exception in the FTCA,” it assertedly “becomes apparent that the absence of such an exception in the SIAA is problematic, to say the least.” Ante at 341. Both conclusions are unsupportable.
The only thing the Vang Airlines statement “makes clear” is that the Supreme Court believed that, when Congress enacted an express discretionary function exception to the FTCA, it sought to prevent “judicial ‘second-guessing’ ” of certain “legislative and administrative decisions.” Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 814, 104 S.Ct. 2755. The statement does not “make clear” that either Congress, or the Court, regarded the discretionary function exception in the FTCA as an “embodiment of separation-of-powers concerns.” Ante at 341. Indeed, little indicates that either Congress or the Court, in fact, believed this; neither body so much as mentions, even in passing, “separation-of-powers concerns.”
Moreover, even if the Varig Airlines Court had found that Congress sought to avoid “separation-of-powers concerns” when it enacted the FTCA exception, this does not constitute a suggestion, let alone a holding, that a statute without such an exception is unconstitutional or “problematic.” Rather, the legislative history recounted by the Court in Varig Airlines— that Congress expressly incorporated a discretionary function into the FTCA, in the face of an executive opinion that such legislation was not needed because courts would imply such an exception — seems to suggest just the opposite. This history indicates Congress ultimately concluded that nothing — including any separation-of-powers concerns — would require courts to imply a discretionary function exception, and so it had to enact specific legislation to that effect.
B.
General statements as to the important policies advanced by “the checks and balances ... built into the tripartite Federal Government,” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 122, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), provide the only other basis offered by the majority in support of its remarkable decision to “read into” the SIAA a discretionary function exception. See ante at 340-44. If courts determined policy, I might agree with the majority, but such decisions belong to Congress. And, although it tries mightily, the majority fails to demonstrate that “separation-of-powers concerns” justify its own policy-driven decision.
Rather, the majority simply quotes general separation-of-powers principles and then holds that, without a discretionary function exception, the SIAA would violate these principles by “substantially impair[ing]” the “executive branch’s ability to ‘faithfully execute[]’ the law.” Ante at 342. Even if we could so construe an unambiguous statute, which we cannot, the majority’s argument fails. For, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, Congress can “control the execution of its [statutes] ... indirectly — by passing new legislation.” Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 733-34, 106 S.Ct. 3181, 92 L.Ed.2d 583 (1986); accord INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 953 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d *361317 (1983). Indeed, the majority itself implicitly recognizes this. Ante at 343-44 n. 5 (noting Congress can control execution of laws by including detailed statutory requirements). Given this power, no separation-of-powers principle prevents Congress from choosing to affect the execution of its various maritime statutes, indirectly, by imposing tort liability on the federal government.2
In contrast, clear separation-of-powers principles do prohibit courts from “read[ing] into” the SIAA a discretionary function provision. Because the federal lawmaking power is “vested in the legislative, not the judicial branch of government,” Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 451 U.S. 77, 95, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981), courts have an “obligation to avoid judicial legislation.” United States v. Nat’l Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454, 479, 115 S.Ct. 1003, 130 L.Ed.2d 964 (1995). When, as here, “nothing in the legislative history remotely suggests a congressional intent contrary to Congress’ chosen words ... any further steps take the courts out of the realm of interpretation and place them in the domain of legislation.” United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 96, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 85 L.Ed.2d 64 (1985). If Congress “enacted its intention into law in a manner that abides with the Constitution, that is the end of the matter; [fjederal courts are bound to apply laws enacted by Congress with respect to matters ... over which it has legislative power.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 27, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To go beyond applying the statute passed by Congress would effectively be to “judicially rewrit[e]” it and thereby impermissibly “usurp the policymaking and legislative functions of duly elected representatives.” Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 741-42, 104 S.Ct. 1387, 79 L.Ed.2d 646 (1984).
Thus, well-established separation-of-powers principles, rather than supporting the holding reached by the majority, mandate that we not “read into” the SIAA’s waiver of sovereign immunity a discretionary function exception. For these principles — so important in safeguarding the “encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of another,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 122, 96 S.Ct. 612 — require courts to apply a statute as written by the legislature. Only by doing so can the judicial branch avoid “arrogating] power to itself’ or “impairing]” the legislative branch “in the performance of its constitutional duties.” Ante at 341 (quoting Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757, 116 S.Ct. 1737, 135 L.Ed.2d 36 (1996)).3
*362III.
For all of these reasons, I would follow our decision in Lane v. United States, 529 F.2d 175 (4th Cir.1975), and hold that the SIAA contains no discretionary function exception to its sovereign immunity waiver. With great respect, I dissent from the majority’s contrary conclusion.
Judge Michael joins in this opinion.

. Accordingly, I join Part IV.A of the majority opinion; I also join Parts I, II, and III; I dissent from Parts IV.B and V.

. The attempt to analogize the discretionary function exception to § 1983 qualified immunity, ante at 351 (Wilkinson, J., concurring), misses the mark. Qualified immunity protects officials from the "fear of personal monetary liability.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). The SIAA, regardless of whether a court "reads into” it a discretionary function exception, subjects no official to "personal monetary liability.” Id. Moreover, the suggestion that, absent qualified immunity, "neither federal, state nor local government could function,” ante at 351 (Wilkinson, J., concurring), is simply wrong. Although government officials accused of violating the federal Constitution and federal statutes are entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense, those accused of violating identical state constitutional and statutory provisions often cannot avail themselves of this defense. See, e.g., Robles v. Prince George’s County, 302 F.3d 262, 273 (4th Cir.2002). Yet, even without the benefit of the qualified immunity defense, these officials certainly continue to "function.”

. My friends in the majority repeatedly note that our sister circuits have reached the same conclusion that they do. See ante at 337-38 348 n. 7; see also id. at 353 n. 2 (Wilkinson, J., concurring). Given the majority's acknowledgment that a number of these opin*362ions rest on "cursory analysis,” ante at 344, I am surprised at this reliance. Moreover, I note that agreement among courts of appeals on an issue — even in thoughtful, well-reasoned opinions — does not invariably garnish Supreme Court approval. Rather, the Court often rejects a view previously adopted by a number of the circuit courts. See, e.g., Henderson, 476 U.S. at 330, 106 S.Ct. 1871. Indeed, not infrequently the Court disagrees with the nearly unanimous view of the circuits. See, e.g., Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) (rejecting a holding previously reached by most of the federal courts of appeals).