Could Government Immunity Have Blocked the Claim Anyway?

Introduction

Even if Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum and Colby Landrum had succeeded in proving that the unidentified object and accompanying helicopters were operated by the United States government, they still faced another formidable legal obstacle: the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception. This provision preserves governmental immunity for claims that challenge policy-based decisions, even where those decisions allegedly cause injury. As a result, the plaintiffs’ litigation strategy needed to do more than identify a federal connection. It also had to frame the government’s conduct as negligent implementation of established safety duties rather than an attack on protected governmental decision-making. That distinction could have determined whether a court reached the merits of the case at all.[FindLaw]caselaw.findlaw.comUNITED STATES v. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) | FindLawMarch 26, 1991…Published: March 26, 1991

Could Government Immunity Have Blocked the Claim Anyway?

The FTCA waives sovereign immunity only in carefully defined circumstances. One of its most important limitations is the discretionary-function exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), which shields the United States from liability for claims arising from governmental decisions involving judgment grounded in public policy. Courts have repeatedly explained that Congress adopted this exception to prevent judges from second-guessing executive and administrative policy choices through ordinary negligence lawsuits.[Department of Justice]justice.govDepartment of Justice Office of the Solicitor General | Snyder v. United StatesDepartment of JusticeOffice of the Solicitor General | Snyder v. United States - Opposition | United States Department of Justice…

For the Cash–Landrum litigation, this meant that identifying a federal aircraft or a classified operation would not automatically have opened the door to damages. The character of the alleged negligence mattered as much as the identity of the alleged wrongdoer.

What the discretionary-function exception protects

The exception protects governmental choices that require balancing public interests, resources or national priorities. Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Varig Airlines, Berkovitz v. United States and United States v. Gaubert establish a two-part analysis that remains central to FTCA litigation.

First, courts ask whether the challenged conduct involved genuine judgment or choice. If a federal statute, regulation or mandatory policy required a specific course of action, there is no protected discretion because officials had no lawful option to do otherwise.

Secondly, if discretion existed, courts ask whether that judgment was the kind of policy decision that Congress intended to shield—typically one involving social, economic, political or governmental policy considerations. The focus is on the nature of the decision rather than the rank of the official making it.[findlaw.com]caselaw.findlaw.comUNITED STATES v. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) | FindLawMarch 26, 1991…Published: March 26, 1991

This framework is significant because even operational personnel may be protected if their decisions implement policy-based judgments rather than violate mandatory rules.

Policy decisions versus routine operational negligence

For the plaintiffs, there was an important distinction between challenging a governmental programme itself and challenging the careless execution of that programme.

Had the lawsuit effectively alleged that the government negligently authorised, planned or conducted a secret aerospace or defence operation, the United States could have argued that such decisions necessarily involved protected policy judgments concerning national security, military planning and resource allocation. Courts have traditionally been reluctant to permit tort suits that require reviewing precisely those types of governmental choices.[FindLaw]caselaw.findlaw.comUNITED STATES v. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) | FindLawMarch 26, 1991…Published: March 26, 1991

By contrast, routine operational negligence occupies a different category. If government employees fail to perform ordinary safety tasks, ignore mandatory procedures or negligently carry out an authorised mission, those failures may fall outside the discretionary-function exception because they concern implementation rather than protected policy.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning illustrates this distinction. In Indian Towing Co. v. United States, for example, once the government chose to operate a lighthouse, negligent maintenance of the light itself was not treated as a protected policy judgment. Likewise, Berkovitz held that officials who disregard mandatory regulatory requirements cannot invoke discretionary-function immunity simply because they are government employees. Gaubert later clarified that the key inquiry is whether the challenged conduct is susceptible to policy analysis, not whether it occurred at a so-called “planning” or “operational” level.[cornell.edu]law.cornell.eduLegal Information InstituteUNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Thomas M. GAUBERT. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteM…

Why specific safety-rule violations mattered

This legal framework explains why a narrowly framed negligence theory would have been more promising than a broad challenge to an alleged secret programme.

If the plaintiffs had identified mandatory military or aviation safety requirements requiring, for example, minimum separation distances, emergency procedures, hazardous-material containment or public-road safety measures, they could have argued that federal personnel violated non-discretionary obligations. Under Berkovitz, failure to follow such mandatory directives is generally not protected by the discretionary-function exception because officials lack discretion to disregard binding rules.[Justia Law]supreme.justia.comJustia LawBerkovitz v. United States | 486 U.S. 531 (1988) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center…

The difficulty was evidentiary. The plaintiffs never established:

• which federal agency allegedly controlled the object or helicopters;

Without those building blocks, the case risked appearing to challenge governmental decisions at a high level of abstraction rather than concrete operational negligence.

Why the immunity issue remained largely hypothetical

In practice, the Cash–Landrum lawsuit failed before the discretionary-function exception became the decisive issue. The government denied that any federal aircraft, personnel or equipment participated in the reported incident, and the plaintiffs were unable to produce sufficient evidence creating a genuine factual dispute over federal responsibility.

Because that threshold showing was lacking, the courts did not need to undertake a detailed discretionary-function analysis. Nevertheless, the exception illustrates how difficult the litigation would have remained even if federal involvement had been established. The plaintiffs would still have needed to persuade the court that their claim rested on negligent execution of mandatory safety duties rather than on protected governmental policy choices.

Viewed in that light, the discretionary-function exception represented a second layer of protection for the government. The first challenge was proving federal involvement at all; the second would have been demonstrating that the alleged negligence fell outside one of the FTCA’s most significant immunity provisions.[findlaw.com]caselaw.findlaw.comUNITED STATES v. GAUBERT, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) | FindLawMarch 26, 1991…Published: March 26, 1991

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to Could Government Immunity Have Blocked the Claim Anyway?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy

By Stephen G. Breyer

Help your students master the principles of administrative law in an era of change with this new edition of the renowned casebook ADMINIS...

See on Amazon

Book

The Forms and Functions of Tort Law

By Kenneth S. Abraham

The perfect accompaniment to any torts casebook, The Forms and Functions of Tort Law covers all the major cases and issues in the standar...

See on Amazon

Book

The Federal Courts and the Federal System

By Richard H. Fallon (Jr.), Henry Melvin Hart et al.

This supplement brings the main casebook up to date with recent changes in the law.

See on Amazon

Book

The Rule of Law

By Tom Bingham

'A gem of a book ... Inspiring and timely. Everyone should read it' Independent 'The Rule of Law' is a phrase much used but little examin...

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:Administrative Law and Regulatory PolicyThe Forms and Functions of Tort LawThe Federal Courts and the Federal System

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.

Current eBay listing

UFO Over Desert Highway Sci-Fi Abduction Poster Print Framed Canvas Wall Art

GBP 18.99 | Free shippingNewSeller: paradiseposters (99.4% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

UFO S4 Framed Picture Poster Print Wall Art A3 Bob Lazar

GBP 21.50 | Shipping GBP 3.71NewSeller: lavishaddict (100.0% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

Retro Framed UFO Flying Saucers Art Print Poster Wall Art In Great Condition A3

GBP 21.50 | Shipping GBP 5.15NewSeller: robar 499043 (100.0% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

Conspiracy Theory Poster Wall Print Gift UFO Aliens Flat Earth Moon Landing

GBP 5.97 | Free shippingNewSeller: forgevalleyprint (99.3% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: caselaw.findlaw.com
Link:https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/499/315.html

Published: March 26, 1991

2. Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/531/

3. Source: justice.gov
Title: Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General | Snyder v. United States
Link:https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/snyder-v-united-states-opposition

4. Source: justice.gov
Link:https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/mitchell-v-united-states-opposition

Published: March 1, 2001

5. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/22-6014/22-6014-2024-06-28.html

Published: June 28, 2024

6. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/23-5439/23-5439-2024-06-28.html

Published: June 28, 2024

7. Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/986/716/101162/

8. Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/499/315/

Published: March 26, 1991

9. Source: justice.gov
Title: Office of the Solicitor General | Lewis v
Link:https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/lewis-v-united-states-opposition

Published: November 20, 2003

10. Source: youtube.com
Title: The Cash
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6sV0LIy7GI

11. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/315

12. Source: law.cornell.edu
Title: 89 1793.ZC
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1793.ZC.html

Published: March 26, 1991

13. Source: law.cornell.edu
Link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/486/531

Published: June 13, 1988

Additional References

14. Source: youtube.com
Title: Did Aliens Cause This Family Health Problems? | Cash-Landrum Incident
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFz7hXTJDkU

15. Source: youtube.com
Title: Berkovitz v. United States Case Brief
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe-xwh2-ups

16. Source: youtube.com
Title: THE CASH LANDRUM INCIDENT | MOST CREDIBLE UFO CASE IN HISTORY
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzoOTCOUMKA

17. Source: youtube.com
Title: Cestonaro v. United States Case Brief
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8BfUfwmWn8