| Litigants: | United States v. Stanley |
| Arguedate: | April 21 |
| Argueyear: | 1987 |
| Decidedate: | June 25 |
| Decideyear: | 1987 |
| Fullname: | United States, et al. v. James B. Stanley |
| Oralargument: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_86_393 |
| Usvol: | 483 |
| Uspage: | 669 |
| Parallelcitations: | 107 S. Ct. 3054; 97 L. Ed. 2d 550; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2890; 55 U.S.L.W. 5101 |
| Holding: | Servicemen may not maintain a Bivens action for injuries arising out of activity "incident to service." |
| Majority: | Scalia |
| Joinmajority: | Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Powell; Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor (part I) |
| Concurrence/Dissent: | Brennan |
| Joinconcurrence/Dissent: | Marshall; Stevens (part III) |
| Concurrence/Dissent2: | O'Connor |
United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a serviceman could not file a tort action against the federal government even though the government secretly administered doses of LSD to him as part of an experimental program, because his injuries were found by the lower court to be service-related.
In February 1958, James B. Stanley, a master sergeant in the Army stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, volunteered for a chemical warfare testing program. Stanley was administered lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) in a US Army plan to test the effects of the drug on human subjects. Stanley claimed he was unknowingly given the drug.[1]
Stanley claimed that as a result of the LSD exposure, he suffered from hallucinations, periods of incoherence, and memory loss due to his unawareness of having taken the drug. He suffered severe personality changes that led to his discharge and the dissolution of his marriage.
Stanley filed a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging negligence in the administration, supervision, and subsequent monitoring of the experimental program.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the serviceman could assert his claims under the FTCA and refused to dismiss the serviceman's Bivens claims.
After granting certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to give orders to dismiss FTCA claims. The Supreme Court also held there was no Bivens claim for the serviceman's injuries because the lower court ruled the injuries occurred during Stanley's military service.[2]
The majority argued that "a test for liability that depends on the extent to which particular suits would call into question military discipline and decision making would itself require judicial inquiry into, and hence intrusion upon, military matters." In dissent, Justice William Brennan argued that the need to preserve military discipline should not protect the government from liability and punishment for serious violations of constitutional rights:
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing a separate dissent, stated:
In 1994 Congress passed a private claims bill to redress the case. In 1996 an arbitration panel awarded Stanley $400,577 (the maximum amount allowed under the bill) after a 2-1 vote.[3]