Smith v. Clinton
253 F. Supp. 3d 222
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Patricia Smith and Charles Woods sued Hillary Rodham Clinton alleging her use of a private email server while Secretary of State exposed classified/confidential information that contributed to the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed their sons; they also alleged defamation, false light, and emotional distress based on Clinton's later public statements denying she told them the attack was caused by an anti‑Muslim video.
- The United States filed a Westfall Act certification and moved to substitute the U.S. as defendant for claims arising from Clinton's official‑capacity conduct, then moved to dismiss those tort claims under the FTCA for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- Clinton separately moved to dismiss the post‑employment defamation, false‑light, and related IIED claims for failure to state a claim.
- The DOJ certified Clinton acted within scope of employment as Secretary of State; that certification creates a presumption that plaintiffs could rebut by pleading facts showing she exceeded her scope.
- Plaintiffs conceded they did not present FTCA administrative claims to the State Department; they argued exhaustion would be futile.
- The district court found Clinton was acting within the scope of employment for emails to State personnel, substituted the United States for the relevant counts, dismissed those counts without prejudice for failure to exhaust FTCA remedies, and dismissed the defamation, false‑light, and IIED claims against Clinton for failure to state plausible claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Westfall substitution / scope of employment | Clinton acted outside scope by using a private server, retaining/purging records, so she is sued individually | DOJ: emails about State business are the type of acts Clinton was employed to perform; certification creates prima facie showing she acted within scope | Court: Clinton was acting within scope when communicating with State personnel; U.S. substituted for claims arising from her official acts |
| 2) FTCA exhaustion / subject‑matter jurisdiction | Failure to exhaust should be excused (futility) | FTCA requires administrative presentation before suit; exhaustion is jurisdictional and cannot be excused | Court: Plaintiffs failed to exhaust; FTCA bars suit; counts against U.S. dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction |
| 3) Defamation / false light (post‑office statements) | Clinton’s denials and remarks implied plaintiffs lied and thus were defamatory and placed them in false light | Clinton: her statements denied her own conduct and expressed sympathy; not capable of defamatory meaning; no special harm pleaded | Court: Statements not reasonably capable of defamatory meaning or highly offensive; plaintiffs failed to plead special harm; defamation and false‑light claims dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| 4) Intentional infliction of emotional distress (post‑office statements) | Plaintiffs suffered severe distress from Clinton’s disputing their account | Clinton: disputing plaintiffs’ account is not extreme/outrageous conduct | Court: Statements not sufficiently extreme or outrageous; IIED claim based on those statements fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (Westfall Act substitution and effect)
- Wuterich v. Murtha, 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir.) (Westfall/FTCA effect and standards)
- Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir.) (plaintiff may challenge Westfall certification; certification is prima facie evidence)
- Jacobs v. Vrobel, 724 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir.) (scope‑of‑employment analysis and pleading burden to rebut)
- Council on American–Islamic Relations v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir.) (act of same general nature or incidental to authorized conduct)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (administrative exhaustion under FTCA is jurisdictional)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standards)
- Jankovic v. International Crisis Group, 494 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir.) (defamatory meaning inquiry)
- White v. Fraternal Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512 (D.C. Cir.) (defamation‑by‑implication limits)