Millbrook v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Third Circuit and sent the case back, ruling that certain work-related intentional acts by law-enforcement officers can fall under the Federal Tort Claims Act without an investigation, search, seizure, or arrest.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · March 27, 2013 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- Millbrook sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act over a prison guard’s alleged sexual assault.
- Who it affects
- The ruling allows claims against the United States for certain work-related intentional acts by law-enforcement officers, even without a search, seizure, arrest, or investigation; whether Millbrook’s guard met those requirements remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court overturned the Third Circuit and sent the case back, ruling it permits claims for law-enforcement officers’ work-related intentional acts without a search, seizure, or arrest; whether guards qualified or acted within their jobs remains open.
Millbrook sued the United States, alleging that a prison guard sexually assaulted him. The Court did not decide whether the guard qualified as a law-enforcement officer or acted within his job.
The Federal Tort Claims Act allows people to sue the United States in some cases; this dispute concerned the law’s rule for certain intentional acts by law-enforcement officers.
Question presented
1. WHETHER 28 U.S.C §§1346(b) AND 2680(h) WAIVE THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE INTENTIONAL TORTS OF PRISON GUARDS WHEN THEY ARE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT BUT ARE NOT EXERCISING AUTHORITY TO “EXECUTE SEARCHES, TO SEIZE EVIDENCE, OR TO MAKE ARRESTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW.”? 2. Whether The U.S. Court OF Appeals Erred by aFFirming summary Judgement in favor oF the deFendants On the intentional tort claim only without addressing, hearing or ruling on the negligence claim and disregarded it? 3. Should have the U.S. Court of APPeals aFFirmed in Part in Favor OF the Defendants as to the intentional claim, and reversed in Part in Favor oF the Plaintiff as to the negligence claim, and thereby ordering the lower district court to Proceed On the negligence claim? 4. Whether based on questions one and two (1) and (2), the Plaintiff was PreJudiced thereby?
What the Court decided
Holding
The law enforcement proviso extends to law enforcement officers’ acts or omissions that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. The proviso’s plain language supports this conclusion. On its face, the proviso applies where a claim arises out of one of six intentional torts and is related to the “acts or omissions” of an “investigative or law enforcement officer.” §2680(h). 4, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court read the law to cover claims tied to a law-enforcement officer’s actions or failures to act within the scope of the job. It said the officer need not be investigating, searching, seizing evidence, or making an arrest.
The vote
What's next
The case returns to the Third Circuit, which must apply the Supreme Court’s rule. Whether the guard qualified as a law-enforcement officer and acted within his job remains unresolved.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 6 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Millbrook
Opinion added: Millbrook
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.