Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209

Background

James King was assaulted after federal task‑force officers Todd Allen and Douglas Brownback mistook him for a fugitive; King sued both the United States under the FTCA (six Michigan torts) and the officers individually under Bivens (Fourth Amendment claims).
Defendants moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)) and for summary judgment; the District Court granted summary judgment on the FTCA claims because, under undisputed facts and Michigan law, the officers would have state‑law qualified immunity and alternatively found King’s FTCA pleading implausible under Rule 12(b)(6). The court also dismissed Bivens claims on federal qualified immunity grounds.
King appealed only the denial of his Bivens claims; the Sixth Circuit held the District Court’s FTCA dismissal was for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and thus did not trigger the FTCA judgment bar, reversing the dismissal of the Bivens claims.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the District Court’s FTCA dismissal could trigger the FTCA judgment bar, §2676, which would preclude King’s Bivens action against the officers.
The Court held the District Court’s order was a judgment on the merits—because it passed on the substance of the FTCA elements both via summary judgment and a 12(b)(6) analysis—and, although those FTCA elements are jurisdictional, that overlap can produce a merits judgment that triggers the judgment bar; the Sixth Circuit’s judgment was reversed.
Justice Sotomayor concurred, agreeing the FTCA dismissal was on the merits but warning the Court did not resolve whether the judgment bar applies to claims brought within the same lawsuit and urging closer analysis of that question.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court’s dismissal of FTCA claims constituted a “judgment in an action under §1346(b)” that can trigger the §2676 judgment bar	King: Dismissal was for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and thus did not decide the merits; it cannot trigger the judgment bar	Government: The dismissal passed on the substance of FTCA claims (state‑law immunity and Rule 12(b)(6) merits), so it is a judgment that can trigger the bar	The Court: It was a judgment on the merits that can trigger the judgment bar.
Whether a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal normally deprives a federal court of subject‑matter jurisdiction in the FTCA context	King: 12(b)(6) dismissals do not normally deprive jurisdiction; here FTCA elements are jurisdictional so dismissal shows lack of jurisdiction and no preclusion	Government: FTCA elements are jurisdictional but overlap with merits; a dismissal that resolves those elements can be both jurisdictional and on the merits	The Court: FTCA elements are jurisdictional; failure to plead them deprives jurisdiction, but when pleading and jurisdiction overlap, a jurisdictional dismissal can also be a merits judgment that triggers the judgment bar.
Whether the judgment bar applies to claims brought in the same lawsuit (i.e., precluding Bivens claims joined with FTCA claims)	King: Judgment bar should not preclude separate claims asserted in the same action; statute contemplates "action" meaning a whole separate suit	Petitioners: Judgment bar applies to any judgment resolving the FTCA claims (including those in the same suit); plaintiffs choose FTCA relief at the cost of preclusion	The Court: Did not decide this question; left to Sixth Circuit on remand. Justice Sotomayor emphasized the issue remains open and merits deeper analysis.
Whether the District Court could properly enter summary judgment when its jurisdiction depended on the same FTCA elements	King: Court lacked power to grant summary judgment because jurisdictional threshold should have been resolved first	Government: Resolving the overlapping questions was permissible; the dismissal should have preclusive effect	The Court: Criticized district court procedure (it should have resolved jurisdiction first) but held the substantive ruling nonetheless passed on the merits and can trigger the judgment bar.

Key Cases Cited

Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (explaining what constitutes a judgment "on the merits")
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Rule 12(b)(6) addresses the merits)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (FTCA claims require showing elements that are jurisdictional)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (federal courts may not decide merits without jurisdiction)
Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U.S. 621 (FTCA judgment bar operates similarly to claim preclusion)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (federal courts have power to determine their own jurisdiction)
King v. United States, 917 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. decision holding FTCA dismissal lacked preclusive effect; reversed)