Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stands firm against a decades-old ruling that shields the government from military injury claims.
According to Newsweek, Thomas expressed his dissent after the Supreme Court declined to hear Ryan G. Carter's case, which challenged the 1950 Feres v. United States ruling that protects the government from liability for active-duty service members' injuries.
The case involves Carter, a dual-status military technician and inactive-duty staff sergeant in the Air National Guard reserves, who became quadriplegic following a neck surgery at a military hospital in 2018. His attempt to sue the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) was blocked by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Feres doctrine.
Thomas argues that the Feres doctrine lacks textual basis in the Federal Tort Claims Act and its policy justifications are questionable. He emphasizes that courts have struggled to consistently apply the exception allowed under the 1950 ruling, leading to arbitrary decisions that deny injured service members their legal remedies.
The justice points out the disparity in treatment between military personnel and veterans. If Carter had been a veteran rather than an inactive-duty reservist, he would have been allowed to pursue legal action for the same injuries from the same treatment at the same facility.
In his dissent, Thomas expressed strong criticism of the Feres doctrine. His words reflect the widespread condemnation from legal scholars and judges:
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.
The incident occurred in 2018 when Carter underwent elective neck surgery to address a degenerative condition. During the procedure at a military hospital, he sustained a spinal cord injury that resulted in complete paralysis of all four limbs.
Carter and his wife initiated legal action against the United States, claiming that the government medical staff's negligence caused his injuries. However, their pursuit of justice was halted when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Feres doctrine barred the lawsuit.
The appeals court based its decision on Carter's status as a military member receiving treatment at a military facility, despite his inactive-duty status at the time of the surgery.
Thomas offered practical advice to lower courts dealing with similar cases. He suggests abandoning the search for principled explanations in Feres case law:
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.
The justice's guidance aims to simplify the decision-making process for courts evaluating military injury claims. His approach focuses on precedent rather than attempting to reconcile inconsistent policy justifications.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has voiced strong opposition to a 1950 ruling that prevents active-duty service members from suing the government for injuries sustained during service. His dissent came after the Supreme Court declined to hear Ryan G. Carter's case, where a military neck surgery left him paralyzed in all four limbs.
The rejection of Carter's appeal maintains the Feres doctrine's protective shield over the government, despite Thomas's argument that the ruling lacks proper legal foundation and has been widely criticized by legal experts. Though Thomas provided guidance for lower courts, the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means the 75-year-old precedent remains unchanged, continuing to limit military personnel's ability to seek legal remedies for service-related injuries.
