Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, dissented from the Court’s decision not to hear a case filed by the widow of a fallen servicemember, arguing the refusal shields the government from accountability.
In 2021, Cameron Beck, a Staff Sergeant in the United States Air Force, was struck and killed by a civilian government employee driving a government vehicle while he was off duty en route to lunch with family. Beck’s widow sued for wrongful death and sought to hold the U.S. government liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Lower courts rejected her claim, invoking the doctrine established by Feres v. United States, which limits lawsuits against the government for injuries to servicemembers in the course of duty.
Thomas argued Beck’s death did not arise “incident to military service” because he was off duty and not performing a military mission. He wrote that the precedent has caused “significant confusion” and deprived families of redress even in cases far removed from direct combat or military operations.
Justice Thomas has long criticized the Feres doctrine, which dates back to 1950 and has blocked countless military families from seeking justice in federal courts. His latest dissent adds urgency to the ongoing debate about whether judicial or legislative action is needed to correct what some see as a serious imbalance in the legal rights of servicemembers and their families.
Thomas stated that the Court should have granted the petition for review to clarify or overturn the Feres doctrine. He warned that declining to do so leaves the lower courts “in disarray” and allows the government to avoid liability under conditions that resemble civilian accidents. In response, Sonia Sotomayor wrote separately noting that while she agreed the doctrine is “difficult to justify,” she believed change should come from Congress rather than judicial action.
