Brownback v. King

In 2014, FBI Special Agent Douglas Brownback and Grand Rapids Police Detective Todd Allen, members of a joint federal fugitive task force, mistook college student James King for a fugitive and violently subdued him. King sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and separately sued the officers under Bivens for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the FTCA claims, finding the officers entitled to qualified immunity under Michigan law, and also dismissed the Bivens claims on federal qualified immunity grounds. King appealed only the Bivens dismissal. The Sixth Circuit held that the FTCA judgment bar did not apply because the dismissal was jurisdictional. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the dismissal was a judgment on the merits that triggered the FTCA judgment bar, thereby barring King's Bivens claims.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that the district court's dismissal of King's FTCA claims—whether on summary judgment or under Rule 12(b)(6)—was a judgment on the merits that triggered the FTCA's judgment bar, barring King's Bivens claims against the individual officers. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that holding.

Whether a final judgment in favor of the United States under Section 1346(b)(1) of the FTCA, on the ground that a private person would not be liable under state tort law, bars a Bivens claim brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, against the same federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim.

The decision significantly narrows the avenues for plaintiffs to hold federal law enforcement officers individually accountable for constitutional violations, as even a dismissal of an FTCA claim on jurisdictional grounds may now bar parallel Bivens claims. The ruling has notable implications for police accountability and plaintiffs' access to courts in excessive force cases involving federal task force officers.