Carter v. United States

Background

Ryan Carter, a dual-status military technician and inactive-duty Staff Sergeant in the Air National Guard, had elective neck surgery at a military hospital in 2018. A surgical injury to his spinal cord left him permanently disabled. Carter and his wife sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for medical negligence and lack of informed consent. The Fourth Circuit held that the long-standing Feres rule barred their suit because Carter was a servicemember treated by military doctors, and the Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

Reasoning

The core question Justice Thomas raised was whether the judge-made Feres rule — which blocks certain claims by service members for injuries “incident to military service” — should be overruled or narrowed. In his dissent from the denial of review, he argued the rule has no clear basis in the FTCA text, that its usual justifications (avoiding different state laws, veterans’ benefits as an alternative, and protecting military discipline) are flawed, and that later cases have applied Feres inconsistently. Because the Court denied review, the Fourth Circuit’s ruling stands and the immediate result is that Carter’s lawsuit remains blocked.

Real world impact

The denial leaves intact a rule that can prevent injured servicemembers and their families from recovering in ordinary medical-malpractice cases at military hospitals. It also preserves disagreement among federal appeals courts about when Feres applies, so similar cases may receive different outcomes depending on where they are filed. The Supreme Court’s denial is not a final decision on the merits and keeps existing uncertainty in place.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas’s dissent urged the Court to grant review to overrule or limit Feres, to align FTCA law with its text, and to give clearer rules so lower courts stop applying Feres inconsistently.