Millbrook v. United States

Background

A federal prisoner says three Bureau of Prisons correctional officers forced him to perform oral sex, held him in a choke hold, and threatened to kill him. He sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking damages for assault, battery, and negligence. The lower courts dismissed his intentional-tort claims based on a rule that limited the FTCA waiver to wrongs that occurred during searches, seizures, or arrests, and the Court agreed to review that rule because different appeals courts had reached different results.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the FTCA’s special rule for law enforcement officers applies only when officers are actually carrying out searches, seizing evidence, or making arrests, or whether it applies more broadly whenever a covered officer commits one of the listed intentional torts while acting within the scope of employment. The Court read the statute’s text and concluded that Congress tied the waiver to the officer’s status (an officer empowered to search, seize, or arrest) and to acting within the scope of employment, not to a specific activity. Because the statute does not add a separate requirement that the officer be performing a search or making an arrest, the Court reversed the lower courts and allowed the prisoner’s intentional-tort claims to proceed.

Real world impact

The ruling means that claims for assault and battery by federal law enforcement officers can proceed if the officer is covered by the statute and was acting within the scope of employment, even if the conduct did not happen during a search or arrest. The decision is a ruling on the FTCA waiver, not a final judgment on the underlying facts, and the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.