The United States Supreme Court has opted not to revisit the longstanding Feres doctrine, a rule that has stops service members from pursuing legal action against the federal government for events considered “incident to service.” This decision was met with dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who expressed concern over what he termed “the mess that we have made,” urging his fellow justices to reconsider and overturn the judge-made rule.
Originally established in the 1950s, the Feres doctrine has attracted criticism over its broad interpretation of what constitutes actions “incident to service,” effectively encompassing even medical malpractice claims. One recent case highlighting this issue involved a former Air National Guard Staff Sergeant, Ryan Carter, whose attempts to seek redress were stymied by the Feres doctrine.
For decades, legal scholars and advocates have grappled with the implications of the Feres doctrine, arguing that it results in unfair treatment of service members by denying them rights accessible to other federal employees and citizens. Despite these criticisms, the Supreme Court’s latest decision underscores the rule’s enduring nature within the judicial landscape.
Concerned parties and stakeholders may refer to a detailed report on the decision and its implications available at Bloomberg Law.