Reevaluating the Feres Doctrine: Justice Thomas’s Call for Change
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court declined to hear Carter v. United States, a case challenging the longstanding Feres Doctrine, which bars active-duty service members from suing the government for injuries deemed “incident to military service.” Justice Clarence Thomas issued a compelling 14-page dissent, labeling the doctrine “indefensible” and “senseless as a matter of policy.”
The Feres Doctrine, established in 1950, has faced criticism for decades. Justice Thomas argues that it lacks a foundation in the Federal Tort Claims Act’s text and that its policy justifications are outdated. He emphasizes that the doctrine unjustly denies service members the same legal recourse available to civilians, undermining principles of fairness and accountability.
Critics of the Feres Doctrine highlight its inconsistent application and the injustices it perpetuates. For instance, service members injured due to medical malpractice in military facilities have no legal avenue for redress, a disparity that seems increasingly untenable. Justice Thomas’s dissent underscores the necessity of revisiting this doctrine to align military and civilian legal standards more closely.
While concerns about military discipline and the unique nature of military service are valid, they should not preclude service members from seeking justice for wrongs suffered outside the battlefield. Revisiting the Feres Doctrine would demonstrate a commitment to the well-being of those who serve and ensure they are not deprived of fundamental legal protections.
Resources:
law.cornell.edu