Police Abuse

SCOTUS Considers Whether James King Has Any Recourse Against the Cops Who Choked and Beat Him for No Good Reason

According to the government, a law aimed at helping victims like King prevents him from holding his assailants accountable.

|

The Supreme Court today considered whether James King has any recourse against the cops who tackled, choked and beat him after they mistook him for a suspect who looked nothing like him. The federal government argued that King cannot pursue his constitutional claims against a detective and an FBI agent because his lawsuit also included tort claims against the United States, which a federal judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Institute for Justice attorney Patrick Jaicomo, who represents King, argued that the government's reading of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) contradicts the plain language and intent of the 1946 statute.

The FTCA, the law at the center of Brownback v. King, allows people to sue the federal government for torts committed by people acting on its behalf. King invoked the law because Grand Rapids detective Todd Allen and FBI agent Douglas Brownback were serving on a joint state-federal fugitive task force when they assaulted him in 2014, when he was a 21-year-old college student. But U.S. District Judge Janet Neff concluded she did not have FTCA jurisdiction over the case because the cops' actions did not meet the criteria for a tort action under Michigan law. Neff also dismissed King's Fourth Amendment claims against Allen and Brownback after concluding that they were protected by qualified immunity, which bars federal lawsuits against government officials when their alleged misconduct did not violate "clearly established" law.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit revived King's claims against Allen and Brownback, saying they did not deserve qualified immunity. The appeals court said Allen and Brownback therefore could be sued under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, a 1971 decision in which the Supreme Court authorized constitutional claims against federal officers.

The 6th Circuit's decision was a mistake, Assistant to the Solicitor General Michael Huston told the justices today, because the FTCA says "the judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title"—which gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over the tort claims authorized by the law—"shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim." Since King's FTCA claims failed, Huston said, his Bivens claims were also barred.

Jaicomo presented two main arguments against this interpretation of the statute. First, he said, the FTCA's judgment bar, which is designed to prevent duplicative litigation, does not apply to claims filed as part of the same lawsuit. Second, Jaicomo said, a court's conclusion that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction does not constitute "the judgment in an action" under the FTCA; rather, as the 6th Circuit concluded, it means that the court has declined to enter a judgment.

The first argument seemed to get some traction with Chief Justice John Roberts.
"The statute speaks of 'actions,' not 'claims,'" he noted while questioning Huston. "It was and is very well established [under common law] that there is no bar with respect to claims in the same action. If Congress were going to make such a dramatic departure from that rule, the obvious word to use is right there: It's 'claims.' And yet they didn't do that."

Justice Elena Kagan amplified that point when it was her turn to question Huston. "I'm wondering whether your understanding of this provision makes it into something that the language suggests it's not," she said. "If I understand your position correctly, you're really turning this into an election of remedies provision. In other words…once somebody files an FTCA claim, then really they can't bring a Bivens claim anymore. And the only way to bring a Bivens claim is just to forgo the FTCA claim." While "that might make sense as a policy matter," Kagan suggested, "the statute doesn't read like that. I mean, Congress knows how to write a provision like that. Instead this statute reads like a preclusion statute, and preclusion, as the chief justice began the argument by saying, always applies between suits and not within a single suit."

Huston argued that action in the FTCA's judgment bar should be read as synonymous with claim. He cited a contemporaneous law dictionary that defined action as "a demand for relief in court." In response, Jaicomo said Huston was relying on a definition of action that is "definitely well outside the mainstream." In a 2017 case, Jaicomo noted, the Supreme Court cited the 1933 edition of Black's Law Dictionary, which said "the terms 'action' and 'suit' are…nearly, if not entirely, synonymous." Jaicomo also cited evidence that neither Congress nor the Court has understood the FTCA as requiring plaintiffs to choose between claims under that law and other remedies.

While questioning Jaicomo, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that accepting the government's interpretation of the law would lead to "very inefficient" outcomes. "What the government is encouraging plaintiffs to do is to file their Bivens claims first, win or lose, then file their FTCA claims," which "seems somewhat time-consuming." She added that "it also makes a difference whether a district court decides whether it's going to decide the Bivens claims first." Jaicomo agreed that the results would be inefficient and irrational, noting that "there is no way" for a plaintiff to know ahead of time what he should do to "litigate these claims in parallel, even though Congress and this Court have both said they can be litigated in parallel."

Jaicomo argued that the difference between claims within a single lawsuit and claims in two separate lawsuits is "embedded" in the question posed by the government's appeal of the 6th Circuit's decision: "whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under [the FTCA], on the ground that the claimant failed to establish the liability of the United States on the torts that he alleged, bars claims under [Bivens] that are brought by the same claimant, based on the same alleged injuries, and against the same governmental employees involved in the claimant's unsuccessful FTCA action."

Despite the interest in the distinction between an "action" and a "claim," the Court may not end up resolving that issue. Several justices suggested they were inclined to favor a ruling limited to a narrower question: whether the district court's dismissal of King's FTCA claims for lack of jurisdiction, which King did not appeal, counts as a final judgment that triggers preclusion. The 6th Circuit thought it did not, and that, in addition to its conclusions about qualified immunity, was the appeals court's basis for keeping King's lawsuit alive.

While the issues raised by Brownback v. King may seem abstruse, the implications for King are clear: If the Court decides the 6th Circuit got it wrong, he will not be allowed even to try holding Allen and Brownback accountable for appalling conduct—conduct that the appeals court said a jury could reasonably decide violated his Fourth Amendment rights. According to the government, that is the outcome demanded by a law Congress passed to help victims of government abuse.

NEXT: America Wants Legal Marijuana More Than Ever Before. Catch Up, Joe Biden.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Government Almighty has the GOVERNMENT-ALMIGHTY-GRANTED RIGHT to beat the shit out of you, for no good reason, dammit! Because Government Almighty has said so!!! AND, Government Almighty has 5,239 fancy legal terms to justify itself with!

    And all the right-wing nuts jobs here on the commenter’s lists are WAAAAY too busy finding conspiracies against Dear Leader Donald the Duck-witted, to give ONE hoot in hell about this sort of thing! They are ALL Eminent Legal Scholars, right up there with JesseSPAZ the high-school dorp-ouut who can’t schpell… And they would rather parse arcana about legal-schmegal-beagle-shit, than ask questions about… Is this FAIR? Is this JUSTICE? Is this in the interests of society?

    The hell with THAT! The REALLY SMART people ask all about the legal-schmegal-beagle-shit!!!

    1. Spaz.

    2. True facts. SPQR is the rare non-sockpuppet in the commentariat. He wastes the least time wailing pitifully about those horrible libertarians taking votes away from God’s Onanist Prohibitionists.

      1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this accetion 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

        what I do………work92/7 online

  2. This is all very technical and full of legal nuance. My question:

    What happened to Allen and Brownback? Were they fired? Were they reprimanded? If not, why not?

    1. In an attempt to answer my own question, I find this about Det. Todd Allen.

      Congratulations to Todd Allen who is retiring from GRPD after 21 years of dedicated service.

      Todd came to GRPD after being born and raised in Hawaii. He served our department working Patrol, Special Response Team and his final position upon retirement was the Detective Unit Fugitive Task Force Team. Todd who is known for his quick wit and “story tales”, has been instrumental in catching wanted violent fugitives from around the country, and keeping our streets safe. Todd, who is always strong in this faith, will now have free time for his family and his golf game. We wish him the best and will miss him!

      1. “We wish him the best and will miss him!”

        Translation: We hope that Det. Todd Allen can find another law-enforcement gig, somewhere, which has a strong police union, and is willing to ignore his power-pig fantasies, and his YUUUGE punishment boner… And will, therefor, allow him to FURTHER humor his YUUUGE punishment boner, for many future joy-filled years! All Hail Lawn Odor!

        1. Lawn Odor was one of Tricky Prickears’ cop buddies’ little store after he had to retire from copping asset-forfeiture feelies.

          1. “…copping asset-forfeiture feelies.”

            Good turn of phrase! I might have to steal it from time to time!

        2. Fuck dude can you leave and not come back?

      2. Police Department honors its employees of the year

        GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The Grand Rapids Police Department is pleased to announce its Police Officers of the Year and Civilian Employee of the Year for 2017. Officers Todd Allen, Joel Bowman, John Guerrero and Lucas Nagtzaam and Office Assistant III Ranae Rodgers were selected from nominations submitted to the department’s Board of Awards by service area, division and unit commanders. All five honorees were honored at the Police Department’s 35th Annual Awards Dinner on April 16 at Amway Grand Plaza Hotel.

        LMAO. He’s not the only peach on the squad.

        Police officer of the year takes ownership for role in 2016 cover-up

        https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2020/02/police-officer-of-the-year-takes-ownership-for-role-in-2016-cover-up.html

        1. Typical cop. Typical human for that matter. Who wouldn’t give special treatment to their own?

          Knowing that, why isn’t there round the clock oversight to prevent this shit?

  3. What does King’s contract with the government say?

  4. lol…a white guy ‘seeking justice’ through the courts of law.

    1. Well, nobody on social media spreads a white guy’s case around so people will say his name, and neither media nor government officials have any sympathy or patience when people burn things down seeking justice for him. So the courts are his only remaining recourse. A much more expensive option, I should note.

  5. ★Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and I received $16894 in one month online acting from home.I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time.Everybody will do that job and monline makes extra cash by simply opening this link… by follow details Here═❥❥ Read More  

  6. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that accepting the government’s interpretation of the law would lead to “very inefficient” outcomes.

    Your job is to concern yourself with what the law actually says, not what you wish it said or what you believe to be efficient.

    Sotomayor keeps proving again and again how unsuitable she is for her position.

    1. “Your job is to concern yourself with what the law actually says, not what you wish it said or what you believe to be efficient.”

      Yes, this! All good authoritarians KNOW that the citizens exist to serve the Sacred State and its Systems! The State does ***NOT*** exist to serve the citizens!

      Get it straight, citizens! OBEY the Systems! Like Good Citizen NoyB2 does; NoyB2 has learned WELL from NoyB2’s Authoritarian leaders! (Also, judges should be replaced by automatons and computers. “Judgment”? What’s THAT mean? It doesn’t fit nicely into our Sacred State System!)

    2. Good grief, there are lots of things to dislike about Sotomayor but this isn’t one of them. Use the two brain cells God gave you and think about this for a minute.

      Huston says the statute means X.
      Sotomayor and others note that X would logically require Y.
      Sotomayor makes the self-evident comment that Y is very inefficient.
      Implicit in the comment is the long-standing precedent that judges assume Congress to be rational.
      Second implicit in the comment: It is irrational to be intentionally inefficient.
      Implied conclusion: Therefore, the chain of reasoning leading to that outcome is suspect. Since the chain of reasoning started from Huston’s interpretation of the statute, Huston’s interpretation is suspect.
      If the plain wording of the statute were sufficient to resolve this issue, Huston would not have been required or able to make that interpretation and this controversy would have never reached the Supreme Court in the first place.

  7. Yes, this! All good authoritarians KNOW that the citizens exist to serve the Sacred State and its Systems! The State

    https://padhloindia.in/

  8. Americans could bask in the knowledge that President Donald Trump was likely on his way out without yet confronting the reality that former Vice President Joe Biden was on his way in. But with the election called on Saturday for Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris D–Calif…………VISIT HERE FOR FULL DETAIL.

  9. Americans could bask in the knowledge that President Donald Trump was likely on his way out without yet confronting the reality that former Vice President Joe Biden was on his way in. But with the election called on Saturday for Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris D–Calif….. VISIT HERE FOR FULL DETAIL.

  10. I read this twice and fell asleep once. Too complicated. Just let the kid feed the thugs into a wood chipper.

  11. Americans could bask in the knowledge that President Donald Trump was likely on his way out without yet confronting the reality that former Vice President Joe Biden was on his way in. But with the election called on Saturday for Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris D–Calif .by follow detailsHere═❥❥  Read More  

  12. Sometimes I think SCOTUS could save itself time by being like King Solomon, when one lady asks the baby to be cut in half; other says give it to her OK, but don’t hurt it. Why can’t they just decree that the guys get fired, pay a hefty judgement to the guy, and serve six months in jail for assault and battery? Guess I’m not cut out for SCOTUS; my mind is too simple.

Please to post comments