United States v. Stanley (1986)
- Docket
- 86-393
- Decided
- 1986-01-01
Summary
Question: (1) Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit err in reinstating Stanley’s claims under the Federal Torts Claim Act? (2) Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit err in determining that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chappell did not bar Stanley’s constitutional claims? Conclusion: Yes, yes. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not have the jurisdiction to consider Stanley’s FTCA claims because they were not a part of the order that was originally appealed. The Court also held that the Court of Appeals took an unnecessarily narrow view of the Chappell decision by limiting it to an even greater extent than the FTCA waiver of governmental liability. Because the government is protected from suits arising from activities that occurred during the course of service under the FTCA, there is no reason to assume that the precedent set by the Chappell decision would provide less protection. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which he argued that members of the armed forces deserve the same constitutional protections from the government as those enjoyed by ordinary citizens. Previous federal immunity jurisprudence was based on the specific circumstances surrounding events and that the individuals named in the suit should be required to demonstrate absolute immunity. He also argued that the Chappell decision only barred constitutional claims when military discipline would suffer. Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice John Paul Stevens joined in the partial concurrence and partial dissent. In her separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that both the Chappell decision and the FTCA exception prohibit civilian courts from considering suits that arise as the result of military service. However, because Stanley’s FTCA claims arise as the result of his involuntary conclusion in a military test, his claims should be allowed to proceed.