TVA immunity from lawsuits
Gary Thacker, et ux. v. Tennessee Valley Authority
In brief
The TVA cannot use the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary-function exception to end the Thackers' suit.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · April 29, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- The Court unanimously ruled for the Thackers, holding that the TVA’s broad authority to “sue and be sued” is not limited by the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception.
- Who it affects
- People claiming the TVA acted negligently may have a path to court rather than being blocked by that exception. For example, the Thackers can continue their claim involving a downed power line in the Tennessee River.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
It sent the case back for the lower courts to decide whether the alleged negligence was commercial or governmental and, if governmental, whether allowing the suit would gravely interfere with the TVA’s governmental work.
The decision defines when a federally created agency with authority to “sue and be sued” can be sued for alleged negligence.
Question presented
1. This Court tests the immunity of governmental "sue and be sued" entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority) under Fed. Housing Amin. v. Burr , 309 U.S. 242 (1940). The Court has declined to borrow rules from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to narrow that immunity. FDIC v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471 (1994). Did the Eleventh Circuit err by using an FTCA-derived "discretionary-function exception," rather than Burr , to immunize the TVA from the plaintiffs' claims? 2. Did the Eleventh Circuit, in any case, correctly apply the discretionary-function test? Did that court correctly hold that safely raising a downed power line from the Tennessee River constitutes the sort of "policy"-laden discretionary work that this exception was designed to immunize from suit?
What the Court decided
Holding
The waiver of immunity in the TVA’s sue-and-be-sued clause is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the FTCA. By the terms of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, the TVA’s sue-and-be-sued clause contains no exception for suits based on discretionary functions. Nor does the FTCA’s discretionary function exception apply to the TVA. See 28 U. S. C. §2680( l ). But this Court recognized in Federal Housing Administration v. Burr, 309 U. S. 242, that a sue-and-be-sued clause might be subject to an “implied restriction,” id., at 245.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
What's next
The case returns to the lower courts. They must decide whether the alleged negligence was commercial or governmental and, if governmental, whether the suit would gravely interfere with the TVA's governmental work.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Show 6 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Opinion added: Thacker
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Thacker v. TVA?
- The Court ruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary-function exception does not limit the TVA's broad power to be sued.
- Who is affected by the Thacker v. TVA decision?
- People who claim the TVA acted negligently may be able to pursue suits. Courts must still assess the nature of the TVA conduct.
- What happens next in Thacker v. TVA?
- Lower courts will examine whether the alleged negligence was commercial or governmental. They may limit a governmental suit if it would gravely interfere with TVA work.
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.