res judicata

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a judgment against the plaintiff on a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim, alleging violations under state tort law, bars the plaintiff from pursuing a constitutional remedy under Bivens. Petitioner Douglas Brownback contends that the district court’s dismissal of Respondent James King’s FTCA claims on the basis of his failure to establish the elements of Section 1346(b) constitutes a final judgment on the merits of all claims pertaining to the same subject matter. Brownback argues that consistent with the purpose of the statute, Section 2676 of the FTCA bars King from pursuing his Bivens action. King counters that the judgment bar should be interpreted to incorporate the doctrine of res judicata, which precludes subsequent claims only if a court with jurisdiction has entered a judgment on the merits. King argues that since no such jurisdiction exists over the claims in this case, his Bivens action should not be barred. The outcome of this case has significant implications for plaintiffs’ access to courts and the avenues for relief plaintiffs may pursue to hold government officials accountable for state tort and constitutional violations.    

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether courts can prevent a defendant from raising a defense if the defendant failed to assert that defense against the same plaintiff in a prior, similar lawsuit. The Second Circuit recognized “defense preclusion” as a valid civil procedure concept to bar Lucky Brands Dungarees from raising a new defense in a trademark infringement lawsuit against Marcel Fashions Group where Lucky Brands Dungarees could have raised this defense in a previous lawsuit over the same alleged infringement. Lucky Brands Dungarees contends that applying defense preclusion against a defendant conflicts with fundamental principles of res judicata and is a novel invention by the Second Circuit that is harmful to defendants whose interests change over time. Marcel Fashions Group counters that defense preclusion is a logical feature of res judicata and argues that this doctrine clearly applies to defendants who, after losing a lawsuit, do not change their conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact when and how defendants strategically raise defenses in civil litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Walter Himmelreich brought a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) suit against the United States during his federal prison sentence in 2010. The suit was subsequently dismissed under the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception. The exception states that courts do not have jurisdiction over claims “based upon the exercise or performance . . . [of] a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or [a government] employee.” Himmelreich later brought suit against prison officials, alleging various constitutional violations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the district court’s decision to dismiss that complaint on the basis of the FTCA's judgment bar, which the district court determined barred plaintiffs from bringing claims against government employees that had previously received judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to determine whether a dismissal under the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception in Section 2680 is a “judgment” that would bar future claims under the FTCA’s judgment bar. Simmons argues that a dismissal on the grounds of the discretionary-function exception constitutes a judgment, and that the judgment bar should apply. Himmelreich argues that a dismissal on the grounds of the discretionary-function exception has no claim-preclusive effect and thus fails to trigger the judgment bar. The decision in this case will clarify the proper scope of the FTCA's judgment bar and may impact government employees’ exposure to liability.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Brent Taylor, executive director of the Antique Aircraft Association ("AAA") filed a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") to obtain plans and specifications for a vintage aircraft. After the FAA denied Taylor's request on trade-secret grounds, he sued to compel disclosure of the information. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Taylor's claim was barred because he had been "virtually represented" in a prior action by Greg Herrick, a fellow AAA member whose prior FOIA request for the same records the Tenth Circuit found to have been properly denied due to trade-secret protections. Taylor asserts that preclusion of his claim on the "virtual representation" theory violated his due process rights because he had no legal relationship with Herrick and received no notice of the prior suit. The FAA counters that preclusion was appropriate because Herrick had adequately represented Taylor's interests in the earlier action. The decision in this case will clarify the circumstances under which courts may bar claims under the "virtual representation" theory and may influence plaintiffs' litigation strategies, broaden defendants' exposure to duplicative suits, and limit the availability of FOIA requests of certain members of the public.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Francisco J. Espinosa filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and proposed in his Chapter 13 reorganization plan that he would repay $13,250 in student loans to United Student Aid Funds (“Funds”). Although Funds claimed they were owed an additional $4,582.15, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona confirmed Espinosa's plan as proposed, and Funds did not object to the confirmed plan. Espinosa repaid all debts according to the Chapter 13 plan. Funds subsequently began to intercept Espinosa's income tax refunds, claiming that Espinosa had improperly discharged his student loans, because Espinosa had not initiated a statutorily required adversary proceeding to determine whether repayment of the student loans would constitute an "undue hardship." While the U.S. District Court of Arizona held that Espinosa had violated Funds' due process interests by failing to initiate an adversary proceeding and serve a complaint and summons upon Funds according to the statutory procedure, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, and Funds now appeals. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine how student loans and other debts are collected in bankruptcy and will affect the overall relationship between debtors and creditors in America.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2013, the Texas Legislature passed House Bill 2 (“H.B. 2”), which imposed new requirements on abortion clinics. For example, H.B. 2 required a physician performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the abortion clinic. Whole Woman’s Health, a private abortion clinic, sued the state of Texas to lift the new restrictions. The Supreme Court will determine whether a state can enforce laws that significantly reduce the availability of abortion services while failing to advance any valid interest, including the state’s interest in promoting health. Whole Woman’s Health argues that H.B. 2 imposes an undue burden on women’s access to abortions. Hellerstedt contends that H.B. 2’s justification of improving patient health is supported by substantial evidence, and H.B. 2 will not impose a burden in the majority of cases. This case implicates H.B. 2’s effect on women’s health and H.B. 2’s imposed costs on women seeking abortions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Under the Federal Tort Claims ACT ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. ? 1346(b), the federal government must waive its sovereign immunity from suit to allow private parties to sue the United States for torts committed by federal employees during the scope of their employment. The FTCA also has a judgment bar provision, 28 U.S.C. ? 2676, which prevents a plaintiff from suing multiple times on the same FTCA claim. This case originated when Respondent Susan Hallock brought a claim under the FTCA against the United States after the federal government improperly seized and damaged her property. Her suit was subsequently dismissed because the claim fell within one of the exceptions to the United States' waiver of sovereign immunity under the FTCA. Petitioners Richard Will and his fellow Customs Services agents now argue that the dismissal of Susan Hallock's FTCA claim should bar Hallock from bringing the same claim under the FTCA against the federal employees involved in the seizure of her property. Ultimately, the Court must decide whether general res judicata principles should apply to bar Hallock's suit. The Court's decision may have large implications for The Court's decision may have large implications for judgment finality, and it may also have substantive implications for federal employees' amenability to suit under the FTCA.

As an initial matter, however, the Court must decide whether Will's interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit was premature because the district court litigation did not formally conclude. Consequently, the Court may not even address the issue of the judgment bar provision's applicability, and the significance of the Court's decision will rest solely on its analysis of the collateral order doctrine.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources