Patricia Smith v. Hillary Clinton
886 F.3d 122
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Patricia Smith and Charles Woods are parents of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods, who died in the 2012 Benghazi attack; they sued Hillary Rodham Clinton alleging torts arising from (a) her use of a private email server while Secretary of State and (b) public statements she made in her personal/candidate capacity denying she told them the attack was caused by a YouTube video.
- Claims pleaded: wrongful death, negligence, defamation, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (later withdrawn).
- DOJ issued a Westfall Act certification that Clinton was acting within the scope of her employment for the email-related conduct, prompting substitution of the United States as defendant for those claims.
- The district court dismissed the Westfall-covered claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs conceded they had not exhausted FTCA administrative remedies.
- The district court dismissed the personal-capacity claims for defamation, false light, and IIED for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed the Westfall substitution and the dismissals.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit affirmed: (1) Westfall substitution was proper because the challenged email communications fell within Clinton’s official duties; (2) the FTCA-exhaustion dismissal was correct; and (3) the personal-capacity torts failed to plead actionable defamation, a highly offensive false light, or IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Westfall Act substitution was improper because using a private email server contravened State Department policy and thus was outside scope of employment | Smith/Woods: private-server use violated State Dept. rules and so was not within official duties | DOJ/Clinton: communications about official matters fall within Secretary of State duties; Westfall certification is prima facie evidence of scope | Affirmed substitution: email communications were within Clinton’s employment duties; plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts to rebut certification |
| Whether district court had jurisdiction over substituted claims absent FTCA exhaustion | Smith/Woods: did not contest on appeal (conceded below) | United States: FTCA requires administrative exhaustion before suit | Dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction affirmed because plaintiffs conceded they did not exhaust administrative remedies |
| Whether Clinton’s campaign/personal statements plausibly state a defamation claim | Smith/Woods: statements implied they were liars and harmed reputation; claimed special damages | Clinton: statements amounted to disagreement and sympathy, not false statements of fact; plaintiffs failed to plead special damages or defamation per se | Defamation claim dismissed for failure to plead special damages and because statements were not reasonably capable of defamatory meaning |
| Whether false light and IIED claims survive Rule 12(b)(6) | Smith/Woods: statements placed them in offensive false light and caused severe emotional distress | Clinton: statements were nonactionable disagreement and sympathetic; not extreme/outrageous; complaint lacked specific severe-impact allegations | False light dismissed (no highly offensive portrayal); IIED dismissed (no outrageous conduct and no plausibly pleaded severe emotional harm) |
Key Cases Cited
- Council on Am. Islamic Rel. v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (scope-of-employment inquiry focuses on whether underlying activity was part of official duties)
- Weyrich v. New Republic, Inc., 235 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (disagreement or unflattering statements not necessarily defamatory)
- Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (official foreign-policy communications fall within duties of senior executive officials)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (FTCA requires exhaustion of administrative remedies before suit)
- Hourani v. Mirtchev, 796 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (elements of defamation in D.C. Circuit)
- Kimbro v. Velten, 30 F.3d 1501 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (plaintiff bears burden to rebut Westfall certification)