Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should overrule or limit a 75-year-old ruling in a dissent published on Monday.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court decided Feres v. United States in 1950. The ruling held that the U.S. is not liable for injuries sustained by members of the armed forces while they were on active duty. The decision said the government could still be held responsible for claims that were not “injuries incident to military service.”
What To Know
The Supreme Court has denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of Ryan G. Carter v. United States, meaning that the justices declined to hear the appeal from a lower court.
What was the Ryan Carter v. US case?
Carter was a dual-status military technician and inactive-duty staff sergeant in the Air National Guard reserves. He suffered from a degenerative neck condition and underwent elective neck surgery at a military hospital in 2018. During the surgery, he sustained an injury to his spinal cord that left him paralyzed in all four limbs.
Carter and his wife sued the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the government was responsible for the medical staff’s negligence.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Carter’s suit was barred under Feres because he was a military member being treated at a military hospital.
Why is Clarence Thomas opposed?
In his dissent, Thomas said that Carter’s case should proceed.
“Had Carter been a veteran rather than an inactive-duty reservist, he unquestionably could have filed suit for the same injuries arising from the same treatment by the same military staff at the same military hospital,” Thomas wrote.
Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images
Thomas said that lower courts have “struggled” to apply the exception allowed under Feres.
“The result is that courts arbitrarily deprive injured service members and their families of a remedy that Congress provided them,” he said.
Thomas argued that hearing the case would have allowed the court to overturn or limit the Feres ruling.
What People Are Saying
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent: “The Feres doctrine has no basis in the text of the FTCA, and its policy-based justifications make little sense. It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.”
What Happens Next
Thomas offered advice to lower courts on how to apply the Feres decision when hearing cases.
“Do not look for a principled explanation for our Feres case law; there is nothing to find. Instead, simply ask whether a controlling decision has held that the Feres doctrine barred suit under materially indistinguishable circumstances. If not, allow the suit to proceed,” Thomas wrote.
Do you have a story Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com