FDIC v. Meyer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1994 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSovereign ImmunityBivenssovereign immunitysue-and-be-sued clauseFTCA28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)28 U.S.C. § 2679(a)

Facts

After Fidelity Savings and Loan Association was seized, FSLIC was appointed receiver and, through its special representative Robert L. Pattullo, terminated John H. Meyer, a senior Fidelity officer. Meyer later sued FSLIC and Pattullo, claiming that his discharge deprived him of a property right in continued employment without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The jury awarded Meyer damages against FSLIC, but found Pattullo protected by qualified immunity. FSLIC's statutory successor, FDIC, challenged the judgment.

Issue

Whether FSLIC's sue-and-be-sued clause waived sovereign immunity for Meyer's constitutional tort claim, and if so, whether Meyer could maintain a Bivens-type damages action directly against a federal agency. Also, whether Meyer's claim was "cognizable" under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) so that the FTCA provided his exclusive remedy.

Rule

A claim is "cognizable" under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) only if it is actionable under the whole of § 1346(b), including the requirement that liability arise under circumstances in which a private person would be liable under state law. Constitutional tort claims are not cognizable under § 1346(b) because they arise under federal, not state, law. A broad sue-and-be-sued clause is liberally construed and waives agency immunity absent a clear showing that certain suits are excluded, but that waiver of immunity does not itself create a cause of action; Bivens does not extend to permit damages suits directly against federal agencies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Dana Ruiz sued the Federal Infrastructure Credit Agency, a federal entity with statutory authority to "sue and be sued," after agency employees allegedly terminated her loan servicing rights without notice, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. She seeks money damages from the agency itself and argues that her claim is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) because it alleges wrongful conduct by federal employees acting within the scope of employment.

Is Dana's constitutional claim cognizable under § 1346(b)?

Explanation. A claim is cognizable under § 1346(b) only if it is actionable under the whole of that provision, including the requirement that liability be comparable to that of a private person under the law of the place, meaning state law. Constitutional torts arise under federal law, not state law, so they are not cognizable under § 1346(b).