Understanding the Feres Doctrine:

A Barrier to Justice for Military Medical Malpractice Victims

The Feres Doctrine stands as a significant legal hurdle for service members seeking recourse for medical malpractice within the military. Enforced since 1950, this doctrine emanates from the Supreme Court ruling in Feres v. United States, which bars active-duty service members from suing the federal government for injuries "incident to military service." This broad interpretation has had profound implications, particularly in cases involving medical negligence.

"Perhaps the Court is hesitant to take up this issue at all because it would require fiddling with a 70-year-old precedent that is demonstrably wrong. But if the Feres doctrine is so wrong that we cannot figure out how to rein it in, then the better answer is to bid it farewell." -


— Justice Clarence Thomas, May 3rd, 2021

“FERES WAS WRONGLY DECIDED AND HEARTILY DESERVES THE ‘WIDESPREAD, ALMOST UNIVERSAL CRITICISM’ IT HAS RECEIVED.”

-Former Justice Antonin Scalia, 1987

Origins and Scope of the Feres Doctrine:

The Feres Doctrine originated from a 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case Feres v. United States. This decision arose from the interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which was enacted in 1946. The FTCA allows individuals to sue the U.S. government for certain torts committed by federal employees. However, in the Feres decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the FTCA does not permit members of the military to sue the government for injuries that arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service.

The Three Key Cases

The Feres decision consolidated three separate cases, each involving a different plaintiff and set of circumstances:

1. Rudolph Feres

Background: Rudolph Feres was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army who died in a fire in the barracks where he was stationed. His widow filed a lawsuit against the government, claiming that the Army's negligence in maintaining the heating system led to the fire that caused his death.

Details of the Case: The lawsuit alleged that the heating system in the barracks was defective and that the Army had failed to properly maintain it, leading to the fatal fire. The plaintiffs argued that this negligence was the direct cause of Feres's death.

2. Jefferson J. Jefferson

Background: Jefferson J. Jefferson was a soldier who underwent abdominal surgery performed by Army surgeons. Post-surgery, Jefferson experienced severe complications and pain, which led to the discovery that a towel had been negligently left inside his abdomen during the procedure.

Details of the Case: Jefferson filed a lawsuit against the government, claiming that the negligence of the Army medical personnel caused his suffering and required additional surgery to remove the towel. The lawsuit argued that this medical malpractice was a breach of duty on the part of the military doctors.

3. De Coster v. United States

Background: Lieutenant William De Coster died in a military aircraft crash. His widow brought a lawsuit against the government, claiming that the crash was caused by the negligence of military personnel responsible for maintaining the aircraft.

Details of the Case: The lawsuit alleged that the aircraft had not been properly maintained and that this negligence directly led to the fatal crash. The plaintiffs sought compensation for the loss of Lieutenant De Coster's life due to the government's failure to ensure the safety of the aircraft.

The Supreme Court ruled that these claims were precluded under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), citing principles of sovereign immunity and the unique relationship between the government and military personnel. This decision established a precedent that continues to shield the government from liability in various circumstances, including medical malpractice within military healthcare facilities.

Supreme Court Decision

In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs in all three cases. The Court based its ruling on several key considerations:

Unique Federal Relationship: The Court emphasized the distinctive federal relationship between the government and the military. It argued that allowing service members to sue the government would undermine military discipline and decision-making, which are essential for the effective functioning of the armed forces.

Alternative Compensation Systems: The Court pointed out that service members and their families already had alternative systems of compensation, such as disability and death benefits provided by the Veterans' Administration. These benefits were seen as sufficient to address the needs of injured service members and their families.

Uniformity of Law: The Court expressed concern that allowing service members to sue under the FTCA would lead to varying outcomes depending on state laws. This could result in inconsistency and unfairness, undermining the uniform application of military law and discipline.

Impact on Medical Malpractice Cases

For service members, the application of the Feres Doctrine means that even in clear cases of medical negligence—such as misdiagnosis, surgical errors, or improper treatment—legal avenues for seeking compensation are severely restricted. Unlike civilians who can file medical malpractice claims under state laws or the FTCA, service members are generally limited to seeking redress through the military's administrative procedures, which can be opaque and subject to significant bureaucratic oversight.

The Feres Doctrine has had profound implications for service members, particularly in cases of medical malpractice and other forms of negligence. Some of the key impacts include:

  1. Limited Legal Recourse: Service members are barred from suing the government for injuries that are incident to military service. This means that they cannot seek compensation through the courts for medical malpractice, negligence, or other harms suffered while on active duty.

  2. Reliance on Military Compensation Systems: Injured service members must rely on the compensation systems provided by the military, such as disability benefits and veterans' benefits. While these systems provide some support, they may not fully address the financial and emotional impact of serious injuries.

  3. Challenges for Advocacy: The Feres Doctrine has made it difficult for service members and their advocates to push for legal reforms and greater accountability within the military. Efforts to challenge the doctrine in court or through legislation have faced significant obstacles.

Challenges and Advocacy Efforts

Critics assert that the Feres Doctrine unequivocally denies service members their constitutional right to seek redress for grievances, especially when their injuries result from negligence or misconduct within the military healthcare system. Efforts to reform or repeal the doctrine have been persistent and robust, supported by advocacy groups, legal experts, and legislators who argue that it fails to ensure adequate accountability and justice for those who serve.

Future Directions and Legal Considerations

As the debate surrounding the Feres Doctrine continues, recent legal challenges and legislative proposals aim to carve out exceptions that would allow service members to sue for medical malpractice under certain conditions. These efforts seek to balance the need for military readiness and discipline with the fundamental rights of service members to access fair and equitable legal remedies.

The Feres Doctrine remains a formidable barrier to justice for service members who suffer from military medical malpractice. Understanding its history, implications, and ongoing legal developments is crucial for those affected and for advocates working toward reform. The Feres Doctrine has had a profound impact on the lives of service members and their families, limiting their ability to hold the government accountable for medical malpractice incidents. There is an incredible need for legislative reform to address the doctrine's shortcomings and ensure that service members receive the justice and compensation they deserve.While significant challenges persist, continued advocacy and awareness are essential in pursuing a more just system that honors the sacrifices of service members while ensuring accountability within military healthcare. Addressing these challenges requires ongoing dialogue, legislative action, and advocacy to achieve fair and equitable outcomes for all those who serve our country.