Osborn v. Haley (2006)
- Docket
- 05-593
- Decided
- 2006-01-01
Summary
Question: 1) Does the Westfall Act authorize the Attorney General to certify that an employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of an incident by denying that the incident occurred at all? 2) Does the Westfall Act forbid a district court to send a case back to state court after finding that the Attorney General's certification was not authorized by the Act? 3) Do courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a court's order sending a case back to a state court? Conclusion: Yes to all. In a 7-2 decision, the Court upheld the Sixth Circuit and ruled that "Westfall Act certification is proper when a federal officer charged with misconduct asserts, and the Attorney General concludes, that the incident or episode in suit never occurred." The opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the Act would be ineffective at shielding federal employees from suit if the government were required to accept for immunity purposes the plaintiff's allegation that the event in question occurred. The Court also rejected Osborn's jurisdictional arguments. Relying on the Westfall Act's provision that certification from the Attorney General "shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal," the Court held that after the Attorney General's certification federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, even if the federal court eventually finds the certification invalid. In dissent, Justice Scalia argued that 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) removed the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to review the District Court's order sending the case back to state court. The majority held that 1447(d) did not apply to orders based on findings of invalid certification.