October Term 2012 · Docket 11-1351
Does the Gonzalez Act waive sovereign immunity for medical battery claims?
the side that brought the case seeks damages for unauthorized surgery. The government argues the statute preserves the intentional tort exception.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Shah argued the statute unequivocally waives sovereign immunity for medical battery.
Mr. Feldman argued Congress did not eliminate the standard tort remedy for unauthorized surgery.
questions_and_answers
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-49
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a specific statute overrides the general bar on intentional tort claims against the federal government.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2013.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 3-9
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants a damages award for the unauthorized surgery.
The government wants the claim dismissed under the intentional tort exception.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-1
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the Gonzalez Act explicitly waives immunity for these claims.
The government argues the statute preserves the standard intentional tort bar.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-1
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked how the law treats deliberate harm versus negligence.
Justice Kennedy asked if legal scholars criticize the battery-negligence distinction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-49
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal liability for medical malpractice. It determines whether patients can sue for unauthorized procedures. The outcome shapes future tort litigation against government hospitals.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 47-17 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 47-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 43-1 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 43-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 35-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 35-49
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 35-1 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 35-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 33-41 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 33-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 39-1 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 39-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.