October Term 2024 · Docket 24-362
Does the FTCA bar claims against federal police for lawful acts?
The dispute centers on whether the Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for lawful police conduct.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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. Jaicomo argued that Congress amended the Act in 1974 to ensure a legal remedy for intentional torts.
Mr. Mills argued that the FTCA does not make the United States liable for lawful acts of its agents.
Mr. Liu noted that the Court granted certiorari on two questions regarding the proviso and the Supremacy Clause.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-35 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 31-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the law enforcement proviso in the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-35 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 31-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 29, 2025.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to hold that the proviso creates a freestanding rule allowing claims for lawful acts.
The United States wants the Court to hold that the Act does not waive immunity for lawful acts of agents.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-35 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 31-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-23
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the proviso text is affirmative and creates a distinct legal remedy for intentional torts.
The United States argues the Act does not make the government liable for lawful acts of its agents.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-35 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 31-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-23
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked if the side that brought the case claims only the discretionary exception is inoperative against the proviso.
Justice Jackson asked if the side that brought the case derives this view from legislative history regarding the proviso's origins.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-23
Why it matters
The decision determines whether citizens can sue the federal government for damages caused by lawful police actions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-35 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 31-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-23
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 11, lines 39-11 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 39-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 49-7 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 49-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 11-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 11-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-35 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 31-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 45-35 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 45-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 31-25 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 31-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.