Trial News

The Sixth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the parents of a servicemember who fell to his death during basic training after allegedly being targeted for abuse because of his Muslim faith. The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred under Feres v. United States (340 U.S. 135 (1950)), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has been used to block military members and families from suing for injuries suffered “incident to military service,” even when those injuries are due to the negligence of government employees. (Siddiqui v. United States, 2019 WL 3562641 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2019).)

Raheel Siddiqui was approached by a U.S. Marine Corps recruiter and enlisted in 2015. After completing the corps’ delayed entry program, he accepted enlistment as a private in the regular Marine Corps. On March 7, 2016, he was assigned to the recruit depot at Parris Island, S.C., for basic training. Neither Siddiqui nor his family knew that Siddiqui’s training supervisor, Joseph Felix Jr., had allegedly abused another Muslim recruit while intoxicated.

After less than one full day of training, Siddiqui threatened suicide and reported that a supervisor had hit him. He did not receive medical treatment. The next day, after speaking to recruit liaison services, he withdrew his threat and returned to training after being deemed a “low risk for harm.”

On March 17, he sustained serious injuries after deliberately being paired with a stronger recruit for mixed martial arts training. The next day, he asked to go to the medical center because, among other reported injuries, he had coughed up blood and was experiencing severe neck pain. His request was denied, and he did not receive medical attention. Later that day, Felix found Siddiqui “unconscious in the barracks and attempted to revive him by rubbing his sternum and slapping him.” Shortly after this encounter, Siddiqui fell from a barracks’ stairwell and died. His death was ruled a suicide.

The Marine Corps investigated Siddiqui’s death and recommended “punitive and administrative” punishment for several Marines, including Felix and his supervisor, Joshua Kissoon. Felix was convicted by a court martial for violating orders, maltreatment, false official statements, and drunk and disorderly conduct; he was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to 10 years confinement. Kissoon pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty, making false official statements, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Siddiqui’s parents sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the “negligent actions and inactions of his military supervisors and recruiters” caused their son’s death. Citing the Feres doctrine, the government filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted “despite its strong reservations about [the doctrine’s] continued viability.”

Although the FTCA waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity, allowing people to sue the government for injuries “caused by the negligence of government employees, acting within the scope of their employment,” the Feres doctrine creates an exception to this rule. In Feres, the Supreme Court held that the government “is not liable under the [FTCA] for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” The Court identified three justifications for this ruling: the unique relationship between the government and members of the armed forces; the “generous statutory disability and death benefits” provided to those injured during military service; and the fact that these types of lawsuits, if allowed to continue, would “involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.”

The Sixth Circuit focused on this third factor, referencing cases like the Siddiquis’ that had been dismissed under Feres. In United States v. Shearer (473 U.S. 52 (1985)), for example, the mother of a military member murdered by another servicemember alleged that the military knew of the other servicemember’s prior murder and manslaughter convictions and negligently failed to control him. The Supreme Court found that Feres barred her claims because they went “directly to the management of the military” and asked a “civilian court to second-guess military decisions.” Because the Siddiquis raised similar questions, the Sixth Circuit ruled that their case must also be dismissed.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that their negligent enlistment claim should survive Feres because those allegations—that military recruiters used misrepresentations to entice Siddiqui to enlist—were based on conduct that occurred before Siddiqui joined the military. The court cited Satterfield v. United States (788 F.2d 395 (6th Cir. 1986)) and focused on the timing of Siddiqui’s death, not the timing of the alleged tortious conduct. “There is no dispute that Siddiqui was on active duty when he died, and we conclude that his death during basic training falls squarely within the wide reach of the Feres doctrine.”

The Sixth Circuit also discussed whether it should, as other courts have considered, disregard Feres. Among other references to U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions, the court quoted Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote in a dissent in United States v. Johnson (481 U.S. 681 (1987)) that “Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the ‘widespread, almost universal criticism it has received.’” Despite this critique, however, the Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal: “Unless and until the Supreme Court overturns Feres, we remain bound by the Feres doctrine and accordingly find Plaintiffs’ claims barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Southfield, Mich., attorney Shiraz Khan, who represents the plaintiffs, emphasized his clients’ frustration at being unable to pursue their claims. “Their suffering has been difficult to witness, and yet they’ve been relentless in their pursuit of justice not only for their son but also for other servicemembers. What you see nationwide are decisions saying that the justice system’s hands are tied because of Feres. But regardless of your view of the doctrine, the military should not automatically be protected by it in every case, especially when a harm suffered is not incident to service or there’s no military nexus to establish its applicability.”

The unjustness of denying court access to servicemembers and their families has received widespread attention. Recently, significant civil justice provisions were included in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act with bipartisan support. These terms—in a critical first step to protecting servicemembers' rights—would repeal the Feres doctrine for medical negligence claims brought by active-duty military members.