Access to Justice

Opinion: How the Supreme Court can help sexual assault survivors in the military

Last month, a U.S. Marine posted a video to TikTok sharing her frustration with authorities’ handling of her rape case. It went viral, underscoring the continuing problem of sexual assault in the military. While the Defense Department has tasked an independent commission with studying the issue, that is not the only government institution that can address this scourge. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear a case that asks it to open the courthouse doors to thousands of survivors of military sexual assault — individuals who have been kept out for over 70 years.

In 1950, in Feres v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that service members cannot sue the United States for injuries incurred “incident to service.” As a practical matter, the decision has created a near-absolute bar to civil liability for the U.S. government in cases where, ironically, it has failed to protect those very individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives to protect their country.

The so-called Feres doctrine claims to be grounded in an interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a law enacted in 1946 that makes the United States liable for injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” But Feres is not a credible interpretation of that statute. It directly contravenes the text and history of the FTCA. The FTCA is a broad remedial statute, and nothing in its text suggests that service members’ claims incurred “incident to service” are barred. On the contrary, the statute contains a long list of exceptions, from which the exception created in Feres is notably absent. Indeed, the 79th Congress, which passed the FTCA, specifically considered and rejected earlier bills containing language barring all claims of service members.

The Feres doctrine is an example of legislation from the bench at its worst. The Supreme Court has justified the doctrine with various shifting policy rationales completely divorced from the FTCA’s text. The most recent justification for Feres — that insulating the federal government from liability for claims incurred “incident to service” improves the ability of the military to competently manage its discipline and affairs — is perhaps the most troubling. Research has found that the Feres doctrine actually promotes abuses of power and emboldens perpetrators of sexual violence in the military.

Indeed, the case that the court could use as a vehicle to reconsider Feres involves a woman whose experience, unfortunately, is all too common in the United States: She was sexually assaulted by a fellow cadet at a United States Military Academy. According to her court filings authorities at the academy failed to adequately respond to the reported rape and refused to acknowledge their role in fostering a culture of sexual violence and misogyny in the military. Eventually, this woman withdrew from the academy and filed suit for damages against the U.S. government.

Sexual assault is a pervasive problem in the U.S. military. According to the Defense Department’s most recent report, an estimated 20,500 service members were sexually assaulted or raped in 2018, and nearly 25 percent of all active-duty women experienced some form of sexual harassment. Crucially, those who experienced sexual harassment were at three times greater risk for sexual assault than those who did not. Of all sexual assaults experienced by service members in 2018, at least 62 percent were perpetrated by fellow service members.

Importantly, military sexual assault affects people of all gender identities and sexual orientations. Sexual minority service members — especially male service members identifying as gay or bisexual — experience sexual harassment and assault at disproportionately high rates.

Despite these sobering statistics, many military sexual assault survivors do not report their experiences due to fear that authorities will not take their claims seriously, or worse, that the report will result in retaliation or reprisal. A recent RAND Corporation study reveals that the odds of leaving the military after experiencing sexual assault double.

Changing the culture of sexual violence in the military is no small task, but granting the pending petition and overruling the Feres doctrine would be a significant victory for military sexual assault survivors. It would allow them to obtain compensation from a government that failed to protect them, and more broadly, send an important signal to military authorities and perpetrators of abuse in the armed services that their behavior will not be tolerated.

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
May 10, 2021

Qualified Immunity | Beyond Policing

In 1967, the Supreme Court created from whole cloth the legal doctrine of qualified immunity,...
By: Kristine A. Kippins
Access to Justice
March 11, 2021

Unlikely bedfellows in TransUnion SCOTUS case: Justice Thomas and class action fans

(Reuters) - As the U.S. Supreme Court gets ready in TransUnion v. Ramirez to revisit the vexing...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Cox v. Wilson

In Cox v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a police officer who shot an unarmed man, rendering him a quadriplegic, was immune from being sued for violating the Fourth Amendment.
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

In TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court is considering when individuals whose statutory rights were violated by a private company—putting them in danger of harms that the statute was meant to shield them from—have...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Attala County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP v. Evans

In Atalla County, Mississippi Branch of the NAACP v. Evans, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering when federal courts may adjudicate suits that challenge systematic racial discrimination in the jury-selection...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Jane Doe v. United States

In Jane Doe v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to reconsider whether servicemembers may sue the United States for money damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) when they are injured...