Is The Feres Doctrine Unjustified?

The Feres Doctrine is unjustified. – Gary The Feres doctrine states that The United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. In addition, it also prevents family members of the victims from filing lawsuits and recovering damages on the grounds of wrongful death. However, it does not extend to kill or injured family members, so a spouse or child may still sue the United States for tort claims. It was first established by the Supreme Court of the United States after the hearing of three pending federal cases against the US. The three cases are the Feres case, the Jefferson case and the Griggs …show more content…
The extension of the US military’s status by the Feres doctrine created more room for lack of accountability when carrying out duties. The US military can now easily get away with the mistreatment of soldiers especially during times of negligence or misconduct of the other brothers-in-arms. This issue is morally reprehensible given soldiers are not able to receive compensations over the military’s failure to ensure their safety when executing their duties while in service. Given the military have the proximity to protect soldiers during their course of service; it is arguable that they will maintain the level of safety and precautions that is already present. Cases of negligence are more likely to occur and the misconduct of certain soldiers will be nullified if their acts were committed during the course of service. In Klay vs Panetta, a civil lawsuit that Klay brought against the Pentagon for failing to protect her and other service members from sexual violence, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has perpetuated a baffling tradition of depriving military personnel of basic civil rights. Klay and her co-plaintiffs have been denied a remedy for the wrongs they suffered, simply because they were harmed during their time in uniform. In the case of Chappell vs Wallace, the Supreme Court used the Feres judgement as a guide to their case’s analysis which solidified the interpretation of the law by the US judiciary and not at the will of the Congress. One of the main claims from the judiciary was that military discipline would be undermined by such civilian claims, as demonstrated in the Chappel case. This principle was extended to bar soldiers from filing civil claims against civilian employees. The result is that a doctrine both created and expanded by the judiciary continues to serve as the basis for federal courts to abstain and reduce the amount of