King v. Brownback

1 Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023)
Statement of S
OTOMAYOR, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAMES KING v. DOUGLAS BROWNBACK, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 22–912. Decided October 30, 2023
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of J
USTICE SOTOMAYOR respecting the denial
of certiorari.
This case squarely presents an issue this Court previ-
ously left undecided: Whether, under the Federal Tort
Claims Act’s judgment bar, “an order resolving the merits
of an FTCA claim precludes other claims arising out of the
same subject matter in the same suit.” Brownback v. King,
592 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (S
OTOMAYOR, J., concurring) (slip
op., at 1). When this case was first before us, we remanded
for the Sixth Circuit to consider this issue in the first in-
stance. On remand, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit de-
termined that it could not consider this issue anew because
it was bound by Circuit precedent.
When this Court remanded, I observed that “while many
lower courts have uncritically held that the FTCA’s judg-
ment bar applies to claims brought in the same action, there
are reasons to question that conclusion,” and the issue
“merits far closer consideration than it has thus far re-
ceived.” Ibid. The text, purpose, and effect of the FTCA, as
well as principles of common-law claim preclusion, all indi-
cate that the judgment bar might not apply to claims
brought in the same lawsuit. Indeed, applying the judg-
ment bar in such circumstances produces unfair and ineffi-
cient results. James King now cannot litigate his claims
that officers unconstitutionally stopped, searched, as-
saulted, and hospitalized him, even though the Sixth Cir-
cuit previously concluded that these claims could proceed to

2 KING v. BROWNBACK
Statement of S
OTOMAYOR, J.
a jury trial. See King v. United States, 917 F. 3d 409, 421–
432 (2019), rev’d on other grounds, Brownback v. King, 592
U. S. ___ (2021). He cannot advance these compelling
claims solely because he brought them together with his
FTCA claim, which was dismissed for unrelated reasons.
This broad application of the judgment bar incentivizes
piecemeal litigation.
The Court now denies certiorari and declines to review
the Sixth Circuit’s decision. This denial does not neces-
sarily forestall further consideration of this issue in the
lower courts. Some Circuits have not yet decided this issue
or have addressed it only in dicta. Others have decided it,
but may conclude that prior Circuit precedent is distin-
guishable. Still others may conclude that the Circuit
should revisit the question en banc. See Fed. Rule App.
Proc. 35(a). This may be especially appropriate because few
lower courts have analyzed or explained how the judgment
bar’s text or purpose compels the conclusion that claims
arising out of the same subject matter in the same suit are
barred. See Brownback, 592 U. S., at ___ (S
OTOMAYOR, J.,
concurring) (slip op., at 4).
This case presents a consequential statutory interpreta-
tion question that has divided the courts of appeals. That
question still “deserves much closer analysis and, where ap-
propriate, reconsideration.” Ibid. In an appropriate future
case, this Court should decide this issue.