The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision regarding federal liability in the case of inmate abuse at the hands of correctional officers. Kim Millbrook was a transgender inmate serving out a sentence at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. He alleged that a Bureau of Prisons correctional officer forced him to perform sexual acts while being detained by a fellow officer, with a third standing watch. The Department of Justice, acting as counsel for the Bureau of Prisons, motioned for this case to be dismissed. Their argument relied upon the Federal Torts Claims Act, granting immunity to the federal government from such claims (Neither the Federal District Court nor the Third District Court of Appeals felt that Millbrook …show more content…
The Respondent argued that sovereign immunity waiver should be held against the conduct of the official and not the United States, just because of his or her status as a law enforcement official. The Respondent further supports this claim by citing prosecutor absolute liability. They do not have this privilege because of their status as a prosecutor, but because of their action. The United States should not be a party held liable just because of the status of an employee who commits wrongdoing. The Respondent further argues that Millbrook’s interpretation of the Federal Torts Claims Act results in a divide between law enforcement officials and all other government employees. Law enforcement torts would automatically trigger liability for the United States, which is not the case for all other types of federal employees. Congress did not write this language to single out the law enforcement sector of government. Additionally, the respondent cited other circuit court decisions that supported a narrow interpretation of the Federal Torts Claims Act, specifically Orsay v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and Ignacio v. United States. Both cases confirmed that the language of the provision exempts the United States from suit based on the actions of law enforcement officials in the line of duty. Lastly, the Respondent argued that the correctional officers were acting outside the scope of their employment duties, which in essence prevents the United States from being liable for the assault and abuse that Millbrook has claimed. The Respondent argues that these actions do not fall within the normal scope and expectations of a government employee. In closing argument, the Respondent cited that the Sixth Circuit Court ruled that sexual assault does not fall within the scope of employment of prison guards and therefore, should not allow Millbrook to pursue damages against the United