Brownback v. King
The Facts
James King was severely beaten by two federal task force officers who mistook him for a fugitive. He filed both an FTCA claim against the United States and a Bivens claim against the officers. The FTCA claim was dismissed because the officers were not acting within the scope of employment. The question was whether that dismissal triggered the FTCA judgment bar, barring the Bivens claim.
The Application
King brought both an FTCA claim against the United States and a Bivens claim against the officers for his beating, seeking parallel remedies for the mistaken arrest and assault. When the FTCA claim was dismissed on the jurisdictional ground that the officers were not acting within the scope of employment, that judgment in favor of the United States triggered the FTCA judgment bar. The Court held that the bar applies to any judgment for the government, regardless of whether it rests on jurisdiction or the merits, and therefore barred King's separate Bivens suit against the officers. The result left King without remedy for his civil rights claim - despite alleging genuine federal officer misconduct - because a jurisdictional dismissal in the FTCA suit foreclosed his direct claim against the individual officers.
The Conclusion
**Unanimous ruling for the United States.** Bivens claim barred. Civil rights plaintiffs who lose their FTCA suit on any ground lose access to officer-suit remedies as well.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar precludes a Bivens claim after a plaintiff loses an FTCA suit against the United States, even when the FTCA suit is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than on the merits. A judgment in favor of the United States on any grounds triggers the bar.
Facts
James King was severely beaten by two federal task force officers who mistook him for a fugitive. He filed both an FTCA claim against the United States and a Bivens claim against the officers. The FTCA claim was dismissed because the officers were not acting within the scope of employment. The question was whether that dismissal triggered the FTCA judgment bar, barring the Bivens claim.
Issue
Whether the FTCA's judgment bar applies when the government prevails on a jurisdictional ground rather than on the merits, and whether the bar forecloses a separate Bivens claim against the officers.
Rule
The FTCA judgment bar broadly forecloses related Bivens suits once any judgment is entered in favor of the United States; the bar is not limited to merits judgments and applies regardless of the basis for dismissal.
Analysis
King brought both an FTCA claim against the United States and a Bivens claim against the officers for his beating, seeking parallel remedies for the mistaken arrest and assault. When the FTCA claim was dismissed on the jurisdictional ground that the officers were not acting within the scope of employment, that judgment in favor of the United States triggered the FTCA judgment bar. The Court held that the bar applies to any judgment for the government, regardless of whether it rests on jurisdiction or the merits, and therefore barred King's separate Bivens suit against the officers. The result left King without remedy for his civil rights claim, despite alleging genuine federal officer misconduct, because a jurisdictional dismissal in the FTCA suit foreclosed his direct claim against the individual officers.
Conclusion
**Unanimous ruling for the United States.** Bivens claim barred. Civil rights plaintiffs who lose their FTCA suit on any ground lose access to officer-suit remedies as well.
Notes
OT2020. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support