Thursday, November 30, 2017


Families of victims of the Texas church shooting havs put the Air Force on notice of their intent to sue for their negligence in not reporting on the shooter which would have prevented him from buying a gun.  The history of the "Feres Doctrine" informs us they will lose.

The "Feres Doctrine" has always been hard for me because it was created by one of my favorite justices, Justice Roberts - the original not the current one.  And two, in what is a very short opinion you can read how Justice Roberts struggles to get to the result of military immunity.

"We conclude that the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. Without exception, the relationship of military personnel to the Government has been governed exclusively by federal law. We do not think that Congress, in drafting this Act, created a new cause of action dependent on local law for service-connected injuries or death due to negligence."

Click for Feres v. U.S.

The doctrine then evolved into the notion even in third party cases "Feres" bars suit because it would interfere with the command structure.  I defy anyone to find such a reasoning in the original opinion.

The original opinion was the Court struggling with a hole in the law left  by Congress.  At a substantive level the opinion makes sense.   A soldier gets what is effectively workers compensation, so they should not be allowed to also sue..  But it was not for the Court to fix the problem with the law.   This was a job for Congress.

Well in this shooting case the Air Force will invoke the "Feres Doctrine."  A doctrine which was based in judicial activism and effectively a workers compensation claim.

The courts intentionally limit speech against them by barring the lawyers from calling them out.  Until Congress passes a law which allows for suing judges who seek to silence dissent, the corruption and judicial activism will only get worse.

This is why I refuse to sign the piece of paper which puts me back in the courtroom.  I will never relinquish my right to speak out against a hopelessly broken and corrupt judiciary.  So the battle continues.  Maybe this is the case which will force the Supreme Court to change course on Feres and go back to its original holding.  Soldiers cannot sue because they effectively get workers compensation.


Anonymous said...

I have no problem holding the government accountable for their deeds, good or bad but I think this suit is pointless if the purpose is to imply that the shooting would not have happened if the Air Force had made the required report and he had been unable to buy a gun as a result. This is Texas, he could have gone to any gun show and bought the same rifle without a check of any kind. However, this is not true of every state (yet) so maybe it will help there though I can't imagine that the Air Force will continue to fail to report.

BobbyWC said...

I generally agree this man would have found a gun one way or the other. But what we all suspect to be true will not be considered by the court as a defense. Itg will be a simple Feres dismissal.

Bobby WC