Potentially, but there is no automatic right to recover. A family may have a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States for certain torts committed by a federal employee acting within the scope of employment. A damages claim against the officer personally for a constitutional violation may also be considered, but the Supreme Court has sharply limited when that kind of claim—often called a Bivens claim—is available. The facts, state law, agency, jurisdiction and deadlines can change the answer.
Two possible claims have different defendants and rules
The FTCA and a constitutional damages claim are not interchangeable. One is a statutory claim against the United States for qualifying torts; the other, if a court recognizes it in the specific circumstances, is a claim against an individual officer.
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/416BB956AZL._SL160_.jpg)
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31LOLL7Zn6L._SL160_.jpg)
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
| Question | FTCA claim | Constitutional damages claim (Bivens) |
|---|---|---|
| Typical defendant | The United States | The individual officer, if a damages remedy is available |
| Legal basis | A limited statutory waiver of the United States’ immunity for certain torts | A damages remedy for certain constitutional violations, narrowly confined by Supreme Court precedent |
| Core inquiry | Scope of employment, liability under the law where the conduct occurred, and statutory exceptions | Whether the Constitution was violated and whether the claim fits a context in which courts allow a Bivens remedy |
| Administrative step | Generally, present the claim to the appropriate agency before filing suit | The FTCA presentment process does not apply; other procedural rules may apply |
When an FTCA claim against the United States may be possible
The FTCA allows certain damages claims for personal injury or death caused by a federal government employee acting within the scope of employment. In general, the claim must involve circumstances in which a private person would be liable under the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. That makes local substantive tort law important: depending on the facts and jurisdiction, a family might examine negligence or an intentional tort theory.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The statute’s law-enforcement proviso covers specified intentional tort claims, including assault and battery, when the alleged tort is committed by an investigative or law-enforcement officer. That does not make every shooting claim eligible: the statutory conditions and other FTCA exceptions still apply.
#1 Best Overall
Scope of employment and who is named
For covered common-law tort claims based on a federal employee’s conduct within the scope of employment, the FTCA remedy is generally exclusive. If the Attorney General certifies that the employee acted within that scope, the United States may be substituted as defendant for those claims. The statute preserves constitutional-violation claims and claims under federal statutes that independently authorize individual liability; that preservation does not itself establish that a Bivens remedy exists.
Exceptions can bar an otherwise plausible tort claim
The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, not a general permission to sue whenever a federal employee causes harm. One important exclusion is the discretionary-function exception, which applies to claims based on an employee’s performance or failure to perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion was abused. Other statutory exceptions may also matter, depending on the location and circumstances.
How limited a Bivens claim is
A Bivens claim seeks damages from a federal officer personally for certain constitutional violations. It is not enough to allege that force was unconstitutional: a court must also determine whether a damages remedy is available for that particular kind of claim.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
In Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the Supreme Court rejected Fourth Amendment excessive-force and First Amendment retaliation claims arising from the border-security circumstances before it. The Court emphasized that Congress may be better positioned to create a remedy and that an alternative remedial structure can weigh against extending Bivens. The decision signals substantial limits, but it does not decide every possible fatal-shooting scenario or how every jurisdiction will apply the law. A lawyer must assess the specific context and controlling Supreme Court and circuit precedent.
What the Fourth Amendment says about deadly force
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), addressed deadly force against a fleeing suspect. It held that an officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless that force is necessary and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Garner is not a complete test for every shooting. Whether a particular use of force was reasonable requires analysis of the full encounter under the applicable Fourth Amendment framework.
Rank #4
What an FTCA claimant generally must do before filing suit
- Present the claim to the appropriate federal agency. DOJ guidance describes Standard Form 95 as a form used to present an FTCA claim. The submission must state a “sum certain”—a specific amount of money claimed.
- Wait for the agency’s final written denial, or consider the statutory option after inaction. If the agency has not made a final disposition within six months after the claim is filed, the claimant may elect to treat the claim as denied.
- Get advice on deadlines and related claims before deciding what to file. The six-month period concerns when agency inaction may be treated as a denial; it is not a complete statement of all deadlines. Accrual, limitations periods, state wrongful-death rules and the interaction between claims require incident-specific analysis.
Submitting a form is not a substitute for determining the correct agency, legal theories, amount claimed or applicable deadlines. An FTCA judgment can also affect related claims, so counsel should assess how the claims fit together before a lawsuit is filed.
Why the incident details matter
No general answer can establish liability or identify the claims available in an unspecified incident. A case-specific analysis may turn on:
- which officer and federal agency were involved;
- where the shooting occurred and which state law applies;
- what happened during the encounter, including whether the person was fleeing and what threat the officer reasonably perceived;
- whether the officer was acting within the scope of employment;
- which FTCA exceptions or Bivens precedents apply in the relevant jurisdiction; and
- the dates needed to evaluate administrative and court-filing deadlines.
Because those details can determine both the proper defendant and whether a claim may proceed, a family facing a fatal-shooting case should seek prompt advice from a lawyer experienced in federal civil-rights and tort claims.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
