Commentary on the Alien Tort Statute

 A few days ago I reported that the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case about the Alien Tort Statute.  Dorf on Law has now published a comment and analysis of the issues here.

Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Alien Tort Statute

Today the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case called Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe which raises the issue of whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) or the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) allows lawsuits against parties for aiding and abetting violations of international law.  

LawFare has a long preview of the case here.  SCOTUSblog has a discussion of the oral argument here.

 

Supreme Court holds that U.S. Postal Service can’t be sued over intentionally misdelivered mail

On February 24, the Supreme Court decided that the exception to the Federal Torts Claims Act that protects the U.S. Postal Service from lawsuits over lost or miscarried mail also bars lawsuits in cases where a postal worker intentionally failed to deliver an individual’s mail.  The vote on the decision was 5 to 4, with a dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in which she argued that the majority opinion provided the U.S. Postal Service far more protection from lawsuits than Congress had intended to give it. The case is called U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, and you can read the opinion here.  

As you probably know, the Federal Torts Claims Act was enacted to remove the sovereign immunity of the United States from suits in tort.  However, the Act retained a long list of exceptions for cases in which the Federal Government retains immunity.  Among those is an exception which covers “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.”  

In previous cases, the Court has decided that the exception does not apply to claims arising from car accidents caused by postal employees delivering mail or to claims for slip and falls caused by negligent placement a package on a porch step.  The issue in Konan was whether the exception should cover claims concerning intentional misconduct committed by postal employees, including the conduct of withholding a person’s mail for malicious reasons. 

The majority opinion rules that the statute bars these claims, even in cases where a postal worker intentionally fails to deliver an individual’s mail.  The dissenting opinion, in contrast, argues that  the majority opinion provides the U.S. Postal Service far more protection from lawsuits than Congress had intended to give it.

You can read more about the case in Courthouse News Service, SCOTUS Blog and The Hill.

US Supreme Court: state requirement of certificate of merit in malpractice case does not apply in federal court

In one of the first reported decisions of the term, the US Supreme Court has decided that a state law requirement (to file a certificate of merit) in a medical malpractice case should not apply if the claim is filed in Federal Court.

The case is called Berk v. Choy.

You can read a summary and comment on it in SCOTUS blog.

US Supreme Court opens term considering case under the Federal Torts Claims Act

 This week, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving the Federal Torts Claims Act.

In this case the plaintiff sued the federal government and the US Postal Service alleging damages because postal workers refused to deliver mail to the plaintiff’s property.  The lower court dismissed the claim, the Torts Claims Act recognizes immunity for the federal government in matters involving the handling of postal matters, which includes lost and delayed mail.  But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that intentional non-delivery is not a “loss,” “miscarriage,” or “negligent transmission” of mail, because those terms don’t cover intentional acts.

Here an article on the background of the case:  "How a mail delivery dispute made it to the Supreme Court."

Here is an article reviewing the oral argument: "Court debates lost catalogs and delayed Christmas cards while hearing case on intentionally undelivered mail."  

US Supreme Court to decide whether state limits on malpractice actions apply in federal court

The SCOTUS blog reports on an upcoming case:

Berk v. Choy, to be argued on Oct. 6, surely will be the Supreme Court case of the year for medical professionals. At issue in the case is the extent to which a set of common state statutes designed to stem medical malpractice litigation apply in federal court. If they don’t apply in federal court, victims who have a way to get into federal court will have a much easier time pursuing litigation against doctors than those who cannot.

The case involves Delaware’s “affidavit of merit” statute, something that dozens of states have passed in recent years. Although the details vary, the key concept is that for a medical malpractice action to proceed, the case either has to involve medical negligence that is pretty obvious – the doctor left a foreign object in the patient’s body, the doctor operated on the wrong person, the doctor operated on the wrong organ – or the plaintiff has to file with the complaint an affidavit from a medical professional attesting to the negligence of the doctor who is being sued. Because those affidavits are somewhat hard to come by – how many doctors want to help someone sue another doctor for malpractice? – they pose a serious obstacle to the pursuit of many medical malpractice claims.

.... To continue reading the story go to the SCOTUS blog here. 

Finally, some changes to the Feres Doctrine!

In Feres v US, the US Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of one of the exception to the Federal Torts Claims Act resulting in a ban on any claim for any injury suffered while the plaintiff is in military service (active or otherwise).  This has resulted in findings that members of the military can't sue for injuries caused by medical personnel. The debate over whether the Feres Doctrine should be abandoned has raged ever since.  For all the stories I have published over the years on the Feres Doctrine, go here.)

There have been many attempts to eliminate or at least to change the effect of the Feres doctrine over the years, and Justice Clarence Thomas recently expressed his support for change.  But all attempts had failed, Until now.  

Thus I am happy to report that the Defense Department has published a new rule governing how uniformed service members or their representatives can file claims against the military for medical malpractice.  This new rule states that (subject to some exceptions)

"A substantiated claim under $100,000 will be paid directly to the member or his/her estate by the [Department of Defense (DoD)]. The Treasury Department will review and pay claims that the Secretary of Defense values at more than $100,000. Service members must present a claim that is received by DoD within two years after the claim accrues."

However, it must be noted that the rule does not allow for judicial review of adjudicated claims, and that, therefore, their settlement will be "final and conclusive."

So, it while it is a good thing that plaintiffs will have the chance to recover for their injuries, the remedy provided is still short of the recognition of a possible judicially resolved tort claim.  

For more information, you can go to Military.com, Stars and Stripes and the NY Personal Injury Law Blog.

Supreme Court rules that Alien Tort Statute can't be used against defendants for conduct that happens overseas

Long time readers of this blog know I have followed the cases on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for some time.  For my posts on this topic, go here and scroll down.

The last time I posted something about the ATS was back in November of 2019, when I reported on a case against Nestle and Cargill alleging that the defendants aided and abetted in human rights violations by farmers in the Ivory Coast.  Back then the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a lawsuit filed by citizens of Mali who, as children, worked on Ivory Coast cocoa farms should be permitted to go forward under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).  You can read that post here.

That case was appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court issued its opinion just a few days ago reversing the Circuit Court, by a vote of 8-1, because the lawsuit was based on conduct that occurred overseas. 

Evidently, the decision was a victory for the defendants, but it was not what the business community and the Washington Legal Foundation really wanted because the opinion left open for another day the question of whether the federal law at the heart of the case allows lawsuits against U.S. corporations to begin with.  (I comment on the WLF position in my post linked above.)  

You can read more about the case and the Court's opinion on the SCOTUS blog, Politico, and Howe on the Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas again affirms the Court should get rid of the Feres doctrine

In Feres v US, the US Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of one of the exception to the Federal Torts Claims Act resulting in a ban on any claim for any injury suffered while the plaintiff is in military service (active or otherwise).  This has resulted in findings that members of the military can't sue for injuries caused by medical personnel, for example. The debate over whether the Feres Doctrine should be abandoned has raged ever since.  For all the stories I have published over the years on the Feres Doctrine, go here.)

Recently, Justice Thomas has repeatedly argued that Feres should be overruled.  He did so in 2019 in a dissent from a cert petition (see here); and he did so again earlier this month.  

In yet another dissent from a cert petition Justice Thomas argued should have agreed to hear the appeal of a West Point cadet who sued claiming she was raped by another cadet.  

Justice Thomas opined that Feres v. United States was wrongly decided because the decision was not based on the wording of the Federal Tort Claims Act.  The exception in the Act was meant to protect the government from suits “arising out of … combatant activities … during time of war” but Feres extended that notion by recognizing immunity from suits in any way incident to military service.

The case is called Doe v. United States and you can read Justice Thomas' opinion here.

Supreme Court holds plaintiffs can't sue in American courts to recover damages caused by cross border shooting

In one of several cases related to cross-border shootings, a 5-4 majority of the justices of the Supreme Court recently held against the right of the plaintiffs to sue in American courts.

In 2010, an on-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent who was at the border in El Paso, Texas, shot a boy at least twice. At the time, the boy, a Mexican national, was on the southern side of the border in Ciudad Juarez.  The boy's parents, who are Mexican nationals, sued for damages raising the issue of whether the parents have a legal standing to sue for a death that occurred outside of U.S. territory.

The parents argued that the federal agent's unreasonable use of excessive force violated the teenager's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, which protect a person from unreasonable search and seizure and assure due process protections.

On Tuesday the Supreme Court announced its decision holding that the plaintiffs do not have the right to sue.  You can read the opinion here.

The SCOTUS blog has analysis of the opinion here.

You can find articles and court documents on the case here.

NPR has some analysis of the opinion here.

Embassy Bomb Victims Ask Supreme Court to Reinstate Punitive Damages

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Enacted of 1976 was enacted to protect foreign countries from being hauled into U.S. courts as defendants in actions for damages. However, the law was amended to allow plaintiffs to sue in cases of alleged terrorist activity. 

Last Monday, the attorney for the plaintiffs in case based on the allegation that Sudan supported a pair of embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, argued that the 2008 amendments to the statute also opened so-called state sponsors of terrorism up to the possibility of punitive damages.

Courthouse News has details here.

Supreme Court denies cert in case against gun manufacturer related to Sandy Hook school shooting

This is the big news of the week in the world of Torts.  

Back in March, I reported that the Connecticut Supreme Court cleared the way for families of children killed in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School to proceed with a lawsuit against Remington, which manufactured the AR-15 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used during the school shooting.  After that ruling Remington appealed arguing it should be immune from liability because of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2006) which grants gun manufacturers broad immunity from civil lawsuits that arise out of the criminal misuse of a weapon.

However, the Supreme Court denied review of the case on Nov. 12.  As explained by Prof. Timothy Lytton in the best analysis of the decision I saw this week,

". . . [the immunity granted by the federal statute] does not apply where a manufacturer “knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of a firearm. 

The Sandy Hook families allege that Remington, by marketing certain guns to civilians, engaged in “unethical” business methods in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Specifically, they argued Remington “marketed, advertised and promoted the Bushmaster XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military-style combat missions against their perceived enemies.” 

Remington asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on the federal immunity statute, but the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a violation of the state’s unfair trade practices law qualifies as an exception to the industry’s liability shield. 

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear Remington’s appeal, the case will move into discovery and, potentially, trial in a Connecticut state court. 

Since many states have unfair trade practices laws like Connecticut’s, gun violence victims are likely to bring similar claims elsewhere, effectively ending the gun industry’s federal immunity from civil lawsuits."

 For more links to the story go to:

Politico

NPR

Courthouse News

The ABA Journal

TortsProf Blog

Ninth Circuit upholds right to sue under the Alien Tort Statute; Washington Legal Foundation asks Supreme Court to overturn

Long time readers of this blog know I have followed the cases on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for some time.  For my posts on this topic, go here and scroll down.

I had not heard of any new developments in ATS case law in quite a while now.... until just a few days ago, when I read that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a lawsuit filed by citizens of Mali who, as children, worked on Ivory Coast cocoa farms should be permitted to go forward under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).  The plaintiffs allege that cocoa processors and chocolate manufacturers aided and abetted in human rights violations by farmers in the Ivory Coast.  

Not surprisingly, the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), an American "public interest law firm" (and, essentially a right wing think tank), quickly filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review (and ultimately overturn) the decision of the appeals court.  You can read the brief here.

Among other things, the WLF argues that the apparent purpose of the lawsuit is to assist with a human-rights campaign being waged in the press and before legislatures, not to seriously pursue claims against those who purchase products from farmers who engage in abusive labor practices.

Comment on recent Supreme Court case on preemption in prescription drug cases

A few days ago I reported that he Surpreme Court issued its opinion on Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Albrecht, the latest decision in the Court's line of cases on pre-emption as a defense in cases for injuries caused by lack of adequate warnings regarding prescription drugs.  (See here).

Since then, Max Kennerly, of the excellent Litigation and Trial blog, has published a detailed discussion of the case. You should read the full article here.  Here is his conclusion:

On May 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided Merck v. Albrecht ... destroying most of the arguments routinely used by drug companies to claim that plaintiffs’ cases are “preempted” and have to be dismissed. The law for people injured by branded prescription drugs is far better now than it was before Albrecht, and as a result, it is likely that far more victims will get to see their day in court. 

After Albrecht, a branded prescription drug manufacturer can only establish impossibility preemption — which happens when federal law makes it “impossible” for defendants to comply with state tort laws that enable victims to seek compensation — if they can show: 

-- The manufacturer “fully informed” the FDA by providing both all “material” safety information and an “evaluation or analysis concerning the specific dangers” raised by the plaintiff; and 

-- The FDA took action, “carrying the force of law,” to disapprove the warning proposed by the plaintiffs. 

The Supreme Court’s analysis in Albrecht is far more narrow than any preemption argument ever proposed by drug manufacturers, and far more narrow than the “clear evidence” tests many lower courts have been using since Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). As the Supreme Court itself said, “a drug manufacturer will not ordinarily be able to show that there is an actual conflict between state and federal law such that it was impossible to comply with both.”

Supreme Court decides new case on preemption in cases of prescription drugs

About a week ago, the Surpreme Court issued its opinion on Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Albrecht, the latest decision in the Court's line of cases on pre-emption as a defense in cases for injuries caused by lack of adequate warnings regarding prescription drugs. 

According to the summary and analysis of the opinion in the SCotUS blog, the opinion offers "clarity on the procedure for deciding pre-emption defenses, but little additional elucidation on the contours of those defenses."

You should read the full article (here), which explains that "[a] decade ago in Wyeth v. Levine, the court held that to succeed with the impossibility pre-emption defense, defendants had to produce “clear evidence” that the FDA would have prohibited an additional warning. Yesterday’s opinion in Albrecht attempted to clarify Wyeth’s application by explaining abstractly that the “clear evidence” standard contemplates an irreconcilable conflict between federal and state law, rather than a heightened standard of evidentiary proof."

The court held that judges, rather than juries, should decide whether FDA actions pre-empt state tort suits alleging failure to warn consumers of adverse effects. This is a strategic win for drug manufacturers, clarifying that their go-to defense of “impossibility preemption” – the claim that federal regulation would have prohibited the additional warnings plaintiffs allege state tort law required – can be decided on motions before the case reaches a jury.

Jurist has a short summary here.

NYT Op Ed on the Feres Doctrine

Yesterday I commented on the news that two Justices voted to take on a case that could have resulted in a change to the Feres Doctrine.  Today there's more.  Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, just published an Op Ed piece in the New York Times calling on Congress to undue the doctrine.  You can read the article here.  In part, it states:

For almost as long as it has been on the books, the Feres decision has been controversial. The case reached the Supreme Court in 1950, four years after Congress broadly expanded the tort liability of the federal government in the Federal Tort Claims Act and shortly after the United States had entered the Korean War. Although Congress had expressly disallowed claims from anyone arising out of the military’s “combatant activities,” the Supreme Court in Feres went further. It held that Congress could not have intended that service members could bring ordinary tort suits for any other claims arising out of their military service, even though nothing in the law directly supported that result.

As Justice Antonin Scalia put it in 1987, “Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the ‘widespread, almost universal criticism’ it has received.” Not only did the court in 1950 read into the tort claims act an exception with no textual support; subsequent decisions broadly construed Feres’s scope so that it is virtually impossible for service members to recover damages from the government for almost any negligence or other misconduct they suffer while serving. In the process, Feres treats service members more harshly than any other Americans, even in contexts that are entirely analogous to civilian life — like medical malpractice claims at stateside hospitals. It would be one thing if Congress had expressly required such an unjust and unfair result. But nearly every contemporary court and commentator agrees that it did not — and that the result of the decision, in Justice Scalia’s words, has been “unfairness and irrationality.”

. . . . Why has the court held firm on a decision so widely criticized? In that same 1987 case in which Justice Scalia dissented with three other justices, the court identified three justifications. First, injuries to service members related to their military service should not be left to the vagaries of 50 different state laws but should instead be subject to a uniform federal rule. Second, Congress had already provided at least some kind of remedy to injured service members through “generous statutory disability and death benefits.” And third, tort suits arising out of military service “would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.” 

Reasonable minds can disagree about the relative strengths of these policy arguments; Justice Scalia’s central point in dissenting from that analysis was that Congress had already weighed the pluses and minuses of such policy considerations when it enacted the tort claims act — and it wasn’t for the courts to second-guess its answer. “The problem now, as then,” he explained, “is that Congress not only failed to provide such an exemption, but quite plainly excluded it.”

 As Prof. Vladeck explains, the doctrine is controversial and has been hotly debated for a long time.  Several attempts to change it have failed in Congress.  For some of the arguments against his position you only need to read some of the comments already posted to his argument.  Here is one:

It may be hard to understand the justification for Feres in a medical malpractice case like this, but there are many situations in which the nature of military service is hard to reconcile with normal tort concepts. The Tort Claims Act already excludes liability for combat activities, but military personnel engage in non-combat activities that are dangerous and difficult to measure by negligence standards.

Is it negligent to subject military personnel to training that, by replicating some of the risks of combat, prepares trainees for combat? Is it negligent for the Coast Guard to send personnel on a search and rescue mission in a storm? Does it matter how many civilians may die if no rescue is attempted?  

Military personnel are entitled to compensation on a no-fault basis for service connected injuries. If that compensation is viewed as inadequate, the better solution may be to increase it rather than, as Professor Vladeck proposes, legislation to overturn Feres in its entirety.

 Here is part of another one:

Of course. That's the solution. We need more tort claims. I'm sure that will improve the quality of military healthcare. Why didn't I think of that?  

Geez. You sometimes witness why law struggles to meet reality. 

I happen to agree with the reasoning behind Feres. The military isn't going to function well if you open the government to personal liability claims from service members.  hat's a rabbit hole I don't want to go down. 

If you're a service member and something bad happens... well... you're a service member. Use the military hospital and hope for the best.

So, what do you think?

Justice Thomas argues in favor of overturning the Feres Doctrine!

I am not sure why but the Feres doctrine seems to be in the news a lot these days.  Yesterday I commented on a recent bill seeking to limit the Feres Doctrine and on the fact that the doctrine is currently part of the plot of a TV show.

Today, the news is that Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in a denial of cert with an opinion in which he argued the court should have taken on the case in order to overturn Feres v. United States.  The case is called Daniel v. United States.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also would have granted certiorari.

You can find all the relevant documents about the case here.

Unfortunately, the other important part of the story is that the Court refused to hear the case, which means it refused to reconsider the Feres doctrine.

Since there have been previous attempts to get rid of it in Congress and they have all failed, I am not too hopeful in the future of the recently proposed bill. If there was going to be a change, this now rejected case was the best chance.

US Supreme Court to decide another maritime law tort case this term

About a week ago, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called The Dutra Group v. Batterton, which asks the Court to decide whether a seaman can recover punitive damages in a personal injury suit based on the unseaworthiness of a vessel on which he was working.   The SCotUS blog has an analysis of the oral argument here.  You can also review all the relevant documents in the case and links to more information here.

Supreme Court finds manufacturer can be sued under maritime law for exposure to asbestos even if product is modified by a third party as long as defendant knows of modification

Back in October of last year I wrote that the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that raises basic principles of tort law as related to maritime jurisdiction.  The case involves equipment that depended on asbestos insulation sold by various manufacturers that was installed many years ago on Navy ships.  The plaintiffs are a group of sailors injured by the asbestos used with the equipment.

Last week, the Court announced its decision ruling that, under maritime law, manufacturers can be sued for the injuries caused by their products even if the products were modified by third parties as long as those modifications were known by the manufacturer.

As reported in Jurist:

The suit was brought by two veterans, Kenneth McAfee and John DeVries, who alleged that they were exposed to asbestos while enlisted and developed terminal cancer as a result. The defendants manufactured equipment for ships for the US Navy, on which the plaintiffs served. Though the equipment was not produced with asbestos by the defendants, integration of the carcinogen was performed by the Navy after the installation of the equipment pursuant to instructions by the manufacturers. The suit argued that the two crewmembers were not given sufficient notice that they were being exposed to a dangerous material by the manufacturer, while the companies claimed that they were not liable because they did not install the asbestos materials themselves. Though a federal district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the decision, after which the manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that there were three different approaches that the court could take to constrain defendant liability in maritime product liability law. The first, a forseeability approach, would require manufacturers to anyone who came into contact with their product of any dangers that could be reasonably caused by their equipment, even if it is modified by a third party. Kavanaugh dismissed this test, stating that it would cause “confusion” and “overdisclosure” while being a substantial burden. The second test, the “bare-metal” defense asserted by the defendants, would prevent manufacturers from being held liable for any modifications undertaken by a third party. Kavanaugh stated that this test “goes too far in the opposite direction” from the forseeability test, allowing manufacturers to wash their hands of dangerous products by hiding behind third parties. The court therefore held that a middle-ground test is appropriate, holding manufacturers responsible for harm caused by third-party modifications that are undertaken with the manufacturer’s “knowledge or intention” that such a modification would make the product dangerous.

The case is called Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries , and you can read the opinion here.  You can read other documents relevant to the case here.

The SCotUS blog has analysis here.

Supreme Court hears oral argument on FDA preemption claim

A couple of days ago, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the most recent case on whether claims against prescription drug manufacturers are preempted by FDA regulations.  The case is called Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.

The SCotUS blog has a good short summary of the case here and an analysis of the oral argument here.