Clendening v. United States

The estate of a former military officer exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune says the government failed to warn him about the danger. The Court is being asked whether the suit is barred by the Feres rule, which blocks claims for injuries "incident to military service," and by a federal exception protecting some government choices from suit.

The case is still pending, and oral argument has not been scheduled. The dispute centers on whether the Feres rule applies here and whether the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception, a rule shielding some policy choices, protects the alleged failure to warn.

If the Court takes up the case, it could shape whether service members or their families can pursue toxic-exposure claims tied to military bases. A concrete example is Camp Lejeune residents who say the government knew of contamination but did not warn them.

Watch for oral argument or another scheduling move from the Court. No decision window is available yet.

The estate argues this Camp Lejeune toxic-exposure suit should not be blocked just because the officer was in the military. It also challenges whether the government's failure to warn was protected discretion.

It could affect whether service members or their estates can seek money damages after toxic exposure on base. Camp Lejeune residents are a concrete example.

The next sign is oral argument or another scheduling move from the Court. No decision window is available yet.