Supreme Court Justice Wants to Get Rid of a 75-Year-Old Ruling

Justice Clarence Thomas stated Feb. 24 the Supreme Court should change or limit a decision made 75 years ago. The 1950 case, Feres v. United States, ruled the U.S. government isn't responsible for injuries that happen to military members while they are on active duty. However, the ruling also said the government could still be held accountable for claims that weren't related to military service.

Feres vs. United States

In the Feres case, the court decided that the federal government couldn't be sued for injuries that happened as part of military service. This ruling basically stopped active-duty military members from suing the U.S. government. Thomas had previously urged the Supreme Court to take another look at the Feres decision. The case was made in the 1950s after several families of service members filed wrongful death lawsuits after accidents claimed the lives of their loved ones, like two soldiers who were killed by a civilian contractor driving an Army truck, two who died because of medical mistakes by military doctors, and Lt. Rudolph Feres, who died in a barracks fire caused by a broken heater. In 2019, when the Supreme Court looked at a case related to Feres, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed to hear the case. Justice Thomas, who also agreed with Ginsburg, said Feres would keep causing problems for the courts and prevent military members from getting help until it was reviewed.

Ryan G. Carter vs. United States

Thomas advocated for overruling or limiting the Feres ruling in his 14-page dissent in Ryan G. Carter vs. United States in late February 2025. In that case, Carter was a military technician and an inactive-duty staff sergeant in the Air National Guard reserves. He had a neck problem and decided to have neck surgery at a military hospital in 2018. During the surgery, he was injured in his spinal cord, which caused him to become paralyzed in all four limbs. Carter and his wife filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, claiming the government should be held responsible for the doctor's mistake during the surgery under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Carter's lawsuit couldn't move forward because of the Feres decision, which says military members can't sue the government for injuries that happen while they're being treated at a military hospital. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from the lower court.

'Almost Universally Condemned'

In the dissent, Thomas called the 1950 Feres ruling "indefensible" and "senseless." "This court should overrule Feres," he argued in the dissent, according to Military.com. "The Feres doctrine has no basis in the text of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and its policy-based justifications make little sense. It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars."

At the time of his surgery, Carter was not on active-duty orders or medical orders. His lawyers argued this inactive status allowed him to file a malpractice claim against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, nearly three months after the surgery, the military changed his status to active duty and backdated it to March 14, 2018. Officials said this was needed to make sure Carter's care was covered by the military, but it also meant he couldn't file any claims under Feres. Carter's attorney, Christopher Casciano, hoped the court would take the case, especially after previous comments from Thomas and former Justices, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Challenges to Feres

Congress has made a few exceptions to the rule that service members can't file claims or lawsuits for malpractice. The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act allowed military personnel to file compensation claims with the Defense Department for malpractice at U.S. military medical facilities. Also, service members who were stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina were allowed to file claims and even sue the government for injuries or illnesses caused by drinking water that was contaminated from the 1950s to 1987. The last time the Supreme Court looked at a challenge to Feres was in 1987.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided to keep the ruling in U.S. v. Johnson, a case brought against the Coast Guard by the widow of a helicopter pilot who died in a crash during a rescue mission. The pilot was under the direction of a civilian air traffic controller at the time. The majority of the Court ruled that the pilot's death was directly related to military service.

For now, the Feres ruling remains unchanged. Thomas has repeatedly opposed the Feres decision, and he believes the ruling continues to harm military personnel by preventing them from seeking justice for injuries sustained during service. His dissent highlights the need for the Court to reconsider this outdated decision, arguing it unfairly denies service members the same legal rights as civilians. By declining to hear the case, the Court leaves this issue unresolved, and it remains a point of contention for those who believe military members deserve fair treatment under the law.

References: Clarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Overturn 75-Year-Old Ruling | 'Indefensible': Justice Thomas Slams Feres Doctrine After Supreme Court Decides Not to Hear Military Case | Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) | Ryan G. Carter vs. United States