after Amy How
May 3, 2021
At 11:25 am
The Supreme Court will not consider whether West Point military academy students have been sexually assaulted by classmates, and can sue the federal government.Justice Announced Monday morning They won’t hear oral arguments U.S. Department of Energy v. United States, This is one of the cases they considered in a private meeting last week. The judges also called on the federal government to comment in the two cases, but again they did not take action. Closely watched challenges A law in Mississippi that generally prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lower court repealed the law, and the state has asked the justices to review the case.
More than 70 years ago, the Supreme Court established “Ferres doctrine”: Ferrez v. United States Although Congress generally waived the government’s immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act, members of the armed forces still cannot sue the federal government for injuries from active duty. In the past ten years, the justices have been asked many times to reconsider their rulings, the most recent being in 2019. Ferres But because of the objections of Judge Clarence Thomas (Clarence Thomas) refused to do so.
On Monday, the court again refused to accept the issue due to Thomas’ objection. The facts this time are convincing: the case was brought by a cadet from the United States Military Academy at West Point. The accusation stated that she was sexually harassed while at the academy and was raped by another cadet on campus. No policy cannot protect her. This student named Jane Doe came from a military family and was among the best in the class, but left the school after she was attacked.The Federal District Court rejected her complaint on the grounds of FTCA on the grounds that Ferres In principle, the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling on the grounds that her claim was “incident.”Last fall, the U.S. Department of Energy (Doe) came to the Supreme Court and asked the judge to hear the case and weigh whether Ferres The principle should be overturned. Doe suggested that, as an alternative, the judge should decide whether to restrict the doctrine so that it does not apply to cases like hers, involving service personnel injured during recreational activities in violation of military regulations (she raped while walking Occurs) or when attending a service academy.
Thomas (Thomas) rejected the court’s review decision in a three-page objection. He believes that according to the FTCA text, it does not matter whether Doe joins the army or not, because FTCA waived the government’s immunity to those who filed the lawsuit. The employee was injured when he was negligent. Thomas admitted that there is a narrow exception for “combat activities”, but that exception does not apply to Doe’s case. “FerresThomas concluded: “The judgment was wrong, and it turned out that the case was wrong.”
At least, Thomas went on to say that the Supreme Court should give a review to clarify Ferres The doctrine covers and it does not. For example, Thomas pointed out when citing two different cases in two different federal appeals courts: “Ferres Claims for drowning of drunk waiters are sometimes forbidden, unless this is not the case. “Thomas suggested that even though the court may be “unwilling to accept this question at all, because it would require fiddling with a 70-year precedent, which is obviously wrong,” Thomas suggested, perhaps “the better answer is farewell.” “
The judge asked the federal government to provide its opinion in two cases. first of all, Independent School District No. 283 v. EMDH, The issue that requires the government to weigh involves the statute of limitations that violates the “Disabled Education Act” obligation to “discover children”, which stipulates that school districts have the responsibility to identify, locate, and evaluate all children who have disabilities and may need services.Second case American Axle Manufacturing Company v. Neapco Holdings LLCTwo procedural issues related to patent qualifications are involved. In these cases, the Acting Attorney General did not provide a deadline for government opinions. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in American Axle.]
The judges did not act again Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationThis is a challenge to the constitutionality of the abortion law in Mississippi, and they considered it for the 12th time in a row at the meeting last week.
The next meeting of the justices is scheduled for Thursday, May 13. The court will issue an order for the meeting on Monday, May 17, at 9:30 am.
This post is Originally published on the court Hao Hao.