United States v. Stanley

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsBivensFTCAMilitary serviceInterlocutory appealsBivensFederal Tort Claims ActFeres doctrine

Facts

While serving on active duty as an Army master sergeant in 1958, Stanley volunteered for what was presented as a test of protective clothing and equipment against chemical warfare. During the program, Army personnel secretly administered LSD to him four times as part of a plan to study the drug's effects on human subjects. Stanley alleged serious long-term injuries from the drug exposure and learned only in 1975 that he had been given LSD. He sued under the FTCA and later amended to assert constitutional damages claims against individual federal officers, while also alleging a post-discharge failure to warn, monitor, or treat him.

Issue

Whether a serviceman may maintain a Bivens action for damages against federal officials for injuries that arose out of activity incident to military service, and whether the Court of Appeals, in a Section 1292(b) interlocutory appeal from an order addressing only the Bivens claims, had jurisdiction to revive Stanley's dismissed FTCA claim.

Rule

No Bivens remedy is available for injuries that arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service. In addition, an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is from the certified order itself, and the court of appeals' jurisdiction is confined to that particular order rather than other prior orders in the case.

🔒

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.

While on active duty at Fort Carson in Colorado, Staff Sergeant Leo Mercer is assigned to participate in a military fatigue study run by a joint team of Army personnel and civilian neuroscientists employed by a fictional federal research unit. The researchers allegedly implant a monitoring device in him without meaningful disclosure, causing lasting neurological injury. After leaving the Army, Leo sues the individual researchers for damages directly under the Constitution.

Should the court recognize Leo's damages action?

Explanation. The majority held that no Bivens remedy exists for injuries that arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service. That bar is not limited to suits against superior officers; it extends beyond the chain-of-command setting. The Court also rejected a case-by-case inquiry into actual disruption of military discipline.