This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioners argue that Section 233(a) of the Public Health Service Act grants absolute immunity to its officers and employees, making a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy and barring other civil actions.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioners' Position
According to Petitioners, section 233(a) extends absolute immunity to Public Health Service officers and employees, directing any claim against the United States to the Federal Tort Claims Act and precluding other civil actions.
Respondents' Position
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Conal Doyle presented oral argument on behalf of the respondents.
Justice Alito asked whether Public Health Service employees are paid less than comparable federal employees and whether physicians not employed by the Service must obtain their own malpractice insurance.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned why Congress provided immunity for Public Health Service employees but not for Bureau employees, noting the different legislative contexts.
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer expressed confusion about the Westfall Act argument presented.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired whether the clear‑statement argument would apply if Carlson had been decided before the statute’s enactment.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 122e3dde034fccd4cc86-r1-50d1fa9f4baa7d58.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.