6 ms·

The question decided here isn't: "Can a TSA agent who assaults a traveler be held liable for the assault?" That answer has been "yes" for a long time. But rat

The question decided here isn't: "Can a TSA agent who assaults a traveler be held liable for the assault?" That answer has been "yes" for a long time. But rather: "Can the TSA itself be held liable when an agent under its control commits an assault?" The doctrine of sovereign immunity says "no". However, congress has created exceptions to sovereign immunity, and the ruling is that the TSA is included in those exceptions.

xp84 3y ago
Thank you for this great, succinct analysis!
HumblyTossed 3y ago
Succinct. Thank you.
SoftTalker 3y ago
That is not what TFA says: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) argued that TSA checkpoint staff have absolute immunity from lawsuits for assault, even sexual assault or rape, committed against travelers they are “screening”. That clearly says TSA staff, not the TSA itself. Is that summary of the argument wrong?
- blindhippo 3y ago
  Digging a bit more into the links I found this: Instead, the TSA has argued that, even if all of the allegations in Ms. Leuthauser’s complaint are true, the TSA and its employees have absolute impunity. Regardless of what “torts”, even rape, TSA checkpoint staff commit against travelers, the government claims that Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits or consider claims against them. So TSA is claiming immunity for both staff and the agency. I didn't read the actual judgement, but I'm guessing the grandparent comment has that covered.
  - gruez 3y ago
    That might be a different case. If you look the court's opinion for this case[1], it explicitly says it's not about whether the TSA officer can be sued. >Whether Leuthauser can state a claim against TSO Serrano under Bivens is not at issue in this appeal "Leuthauser" is the plaintiff, "TSO" stands for "Transportation Security Officer" [1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/22-15402.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/2...
    - enragedcacti 3y ago
      Bivens is not the only possible way to sue a federal employee individually. I do agree that it isn't what this case is about, but more because it seems both parties and the court are all in agreement that the plaintiff can't sue the officer under federal law (except for the attempted Bivens claim).
      - shkkmo 3y ago
        Correct, but irrelevant. This particular appear is about suing the USG and specifically about if TSA officers are law enforcement officers for the purpose of a specific law that opens the USG up for liability here.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      That's not the opinion for the lawsuit, but for the appeal of one aspect of a the lawsuit. (But I don't know what issues are in the suit itself.)
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  I would guess it's a mistake in phrasing. Also from the article (emphasis mine): > The three judges found unanimously that the Federal Tort Clams [Claims?] Act (FTCA) allows lawsuits against the TSA for damages caused by checkpoint staff who assault travelers.
- dylan604 3y ago
  >even sexual assault or rape, committed against travelers they are “screening”. How in the world could that sentence EVER be justified? Maybe there's justification for protection from assault due to physical altercations while attempting to restrain someone. There is NEVER reasoning for rape. FULL FUCKING STOP. Seriously, WTF is wrong with people for a) suggesting it in the first place, and b) ratifying it into accepted policy
  - sneak 3y ago
    Immunity from lawsuits is a different discussion.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      weasel comments like that are also flabbergasting. no. if you are operating with guidelines like allowing protection against an employee from being convicted of rape, then you as a company should be allowed to be sued into oblivion as well.
      - sneak 3y ago
        Protection from criminal conviction is not under discussion at all. It's a complete red herring. The immunity under discussion is about civil liability.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        The parent comment is discussing civil liability: > ... then you as a company should be allowed to be sued into oblivion as well.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    It's a matter of law, not conscience. TSA claims sovereign immunity for the actions of their personnel because of a claimed nuance in a law designed to protect against abuse of federal agents with police powers.
  - 3y ago
enragedcacti 3y ago
> "Can a TSA agent who assaults a traveler be held liable for the assault?" That answer has been "yes" for a long time. IANAL I don't think this is the case. > FELRTCA confers such immunity by making the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for all common law torts committed by federal employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. There are exceptions but a blanket "Yes" is too simple it seems like. I can't find any analyses that contradict this or cases where individual agents are sued rather than the agency (outside of bivens cases which are about constitutional violations and supersede federal law). https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity-government-officers-sued-individuals https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity...
wnoise 3y ago
It looks like the screener was certified as acting under the scope of their duties pursuant to the Westfall act, and thus the TSA was substituted as the defendant.
dmvdoug 3y ago
That’s not right. The suit is against the United States, not the TSA. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the United States’ sovereign immunity in certain limited cases. One of those is if an intentional tort is committed by “investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States.” The question here was do Transportation Security Officers count as investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States. Court: they do. Therefore, the waiver of sovereign immunity applies.

xp84 3y ago

Thank you for this great, succinct analysis!

HumblyTossed 3y ago

Succinct. Thank you.

SoftTalker 3y ago

That is not what TFA says: the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) argued that TSA checkpoint staff have absolute immunity from lawsuits for assault, even sexual assault or rape, committed against travelers they are “screening”. That clearly says TSA staff, not the TSA itself. Is that summary of the argument wrong?

blindhippo 3y ago
Digging a bit more into the links I found this: Instead, the TSA has argued that, even if all of the allegations in Ms. Leuthauser’s complaint are true, the TSA and its employees have absolute impunity. Regardless of what “torts”, even rape, TSA checkpoint staff commit against travelers, the government claims that Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits or consider claims against them. So TSA is claiming immunity for both staff and the agency. I didn't read the actual judgement, but I'm guessing the grandparent comment has that covered.
- gruez 3y ago
  That might be a different case. If you look the court's opinion for this case[1], it explicitly says it's not about whether the TSA officer can be sued. >Whether Leuthauser can state a claim against TSO Serrano under Bivens is not at issue in this appeal "Leuthauser" is the plaintiff, "TSO" stands for "Transportation Security Officer" [1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/22-15402.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/2...
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    Bivens is not the only possible way to sue a federal employee individually. I do agree that it isn't what this case is about, but more because it seems both parties and the court are all in agreement that the plaintiff can't sue the officer under federal law (except for the attempted Bivens claim).
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      Correct, but irrelevant. This particular appear is about suing the USG and specifically about if TSA officers are law enforcement officers for the purpose of a specific law that opens the USG up for liability here.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    That's not the opinion for the lawsuit, but for the appeal of one aspect of a the lawsuit. (But I don't know what issues are in the suit itself.)
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
I would guess it's a mistake in phrasing. Also from the article (emphasis mine): > The three judges found unanimously that the Federal Tort Clams [Claims?] Act (FTCA) allows lawsuits against the TSA for damages caused by checkpoint staff who assault travelers.
dylan604 3y ago
>even sexual assault or rape, committed against travelers they are “screening”. How in the world could that sentence EVER be justified? Maybe there's justification for protection from assault due to physical altercations while attempting to restrain someone. There is NEVER reasoning for rape. FULL FUCKING STOP. Seriously, WTF is wrong with people for a) suggesting it in the first place, and b) ratifying it into accepted policy
- sneak 3y ago
  Immunity from lawsuits is a different discussion.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    weasel comments like that are also flabbergasting. no. if you are operating with guidelines like allowing protection against an employee from being convicted of rape, then you as a company should be allowed to be sued into oblivion as well.
    - sneak 3y ago
      Protection from criminal conviction is not under discussion at all. It's a complete red herring. The immunity under discussion is about civil liability.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        The parent comment is discussing civil liability: > ... then you as a company should be allowed to be sued into oblivion as well.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  It's a matter of law, not conscience. TSA claims sovereign immunity for the actions of their personnel because of a claimed nuance in a law designed to protect against abuse of federal agents with police powers.
- 3y ago

enragedcacti 3y ago

> "Can a TSA agent who assaults a traveler be held liable for the assault?" That answer has been "yes" for a long time. IANAL I don't think this is the case. > FELRTCA confers such immunity by making the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for all common law torts committed by federal employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. There are exceptions but a blanket "Yes" is too simple it seems like. I can't find any analyses that contradict this or cases where individual agents are sued rather than the agency (outside of bivens cases which are about constitutional violations and supersede federal law). https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity-government-officers-sued-individuals https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity...

wnoise 3y ago

It looks like the screener was certified as acting under the scope of their duties pursuant to the Westfall act, and thus the TSA was substituted as the defendant.

dmvdoug 3y ago

That’s not right. The suit is against the United States, not the TSA. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives the United States’ sovereign immunity in certain limited cases. One of those is if an intentional tort is committed by “investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States.” The question here was do Transportation Security Officers count as investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States. Court: they do. Therefore, the waiver of sovereign immunity applies.