Dismissing FTCA Claims for Lack of Jurisdiction Can Bar Related Bivens Claims, Supreme Court Rules

This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2012. Mr. Heelan represents federal personnel across the Executive Branch, including career senior executives, law enforcement officers, foreign service officers, intelligence officers, and agencies in matters of federal personnel and employment law.

When a district court addresses the merits of a Federal Tort Claims Act claim in its decision dismissing that claim for failing to legally state a claim, the FTCA bars the plaintiffs from bringing any Bivens claim on the same subject matter, the Supreme Court held today.

The FTCA allows plaintiffs to bring certain state-law tort suits against the federal government. The statute also includes a provision, known as the “judgment bar.” If a federal court issues a decision on the merits of the FTCA claim, the judgment bar prevents the plaintiffs from personally suing the federal employee who committed the offending conduct at the heart of their FTCA claim. Today, the Supreme Court held the judgment bar is triggered when a court decision addresses the merits of a case as part of its analysis for why it lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim. 

Two members of a federal law enforcement task force mistook James King for a fugitive and “a violent encounter” ensued. King then sued the United States in federal District Court under the FTCA alleging the officers committed six torts under Michigan law. In the same complaint, King sued the officers personally under Bivens, alleging four violations of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The defendants moved to dismiss King’s claims arguing both that the federal district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under to hear King’s FTCA claims, and that those claims failed to legally state a claim for which relief could be granted. In the alternative, the defendants moved for summary judgment.

The District Court dismissed King’s complaint. As to King’s FTCA claims, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding the officers would have been entitled to state qualified immunity for the Michigan tort claims. The court additionally dismissed King’s Bivens claims, ruling that the officer defendants were entitled to federal qualified immunity. King then appealed only the dismissal of his Bivens claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit reversed based on its determination that because the District Court lacked jurisdiction over King’s FTCA claims, its decision could not trigger the judgment bar for his Bivens claims. The Supreme Court then granted the officer defendants’ petition for certiorari.

Today, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the unanimous court’s opinion. To determine whether the District Court’s decision triggered the judgment bar, the District Court’s decision needed to “directly” rule on King’s FTCA claims.

As Justice Thomas wrote, “an on-the-merits judgment can still trigger the judgment bar, even if that determination necessarily deprives the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Because “in the unique context of the FTCA, all elements of a meritorious claim are also jurisdictional,” the District Court’s decision dismissing the claim as legally deficient also directly ruled upon the merits of the claim. Therefore, a unanimous Supreme Court held, the District Court’s decision dismissing King’s FTCA claims triggered the judgment bar and prevented King from proceeding on his Bivens claims.

Read the Supreme Court’s full opinion: Brownback, et al. v. King.


For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.

Previous
Previous

Do you have enough emergency savings?

Next
Next

Merrick Garland’s Attorney General Confirmation Hearing: A Breakdown