Pat Osborn v. Barry Haley, et al. (549 U.S. 225)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 22, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 549 U.S. 225 · 127 S. Ct. 881
- Decided
- January 22, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988, commonly known as the Westfall Act, accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties. See 28 U. S. C. § 2679(b)(1). When a federal employee is sued for wrongful or negligent conduct, the Act empowers the Attorney General to certify that the employee “was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose.” § 2679(d)(1), (2). Upon the Attorney General’s certification, the employee is dismissed from the action, and the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee. The litigation is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 60 Stat. 842. If the action commenced in state court, the case is to be removed to a federal district court, and the certification remains “conclusiv[e]... for purposes of removal.” § 2679(d)(2). In Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U. S. 417, 420 (1995), we held that the Attorney General’s Westfall Act scope-of-employment certification is subject to judicial review. Today, we address three further questions regarding the Westfall Act’s operation: (1) Is Attorney General certification proper when a federal officer denies the occurrence of…
Excerpt of a 50,212-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.