![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/hand-salute-300x224.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Calling All Legal Eagles of Every Variety!<\/strong><\/p>\n Attention all courthouse comedians, nautical negotiators (i.e. sea lawyers), military mouthpieces (i.e. barracks lawyers), and those with actual law degrees!<\/p>\n This appears to be the ideal debate for:<\/p>\n Your expertise (or enthusiastic approximation thereof) is urgently required in this discussion!<\/p>\n Pursuant to…<\/em><\/p>\n Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the Supreme Court to reconsider or limit the 75-year-old Feres v. United States ruling from 1950.<\/span>\u00a0This decision shields the U.S. government from liability for injuries sustained by active-duty military personnel.<\/span>\u00a0Thomas expressed his dissent in the case of Ryan G. Carter v. United States, where the court declined to hear an appeal challenging the Feres doctrine.<\/span><\/p>\n The Feres doctrine, established in 1950, prevents active-duty service members from suing the government for injuries incident to military service.<\/span>\u00a0Thomas argues that this doctrine lacks basis in the Federal Tort Claims Act and has been widely criticized by legal scholars.<\/span>\u00a0He contends that Feres unfairly denies military personnel the same legal rights as civilians, even in cases with tenuous connections to military service.<\/span><\/p>\n Despite some exceptions made by Congress, such as allowing malpractice claims against the Defense Department and claims related to Camp Lejeune water contamination, the Feres doctrine remains largely intact.<\/span>\u00a0Thomas’s dissent highlights the ongoing debate about the fairness of this ruling and its impact on service members’ ability to seek legal recourse for injuries sustained during their service.<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n