Introduction

Examining the Fourth Circuit's Ruling on Government Immunity in the Context of Firearm Background Checks

The case of Felicita Sanders, individually and as Legal Custodian for K.M., a minor, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. United States of America (937 F.3d 316) represents a pivotal moment in the judicial assessment of governmental liability concerning firearm background checks. Argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on August 30, 2019, this case consolidated multiple lawsuits brought by survivors and estates of victims slain by Dylann Roof in the tragic Charleston church shooting on June 17, 2015.

The Plaintiffs sought to hold the United States liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligently performing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check, which failed to prevent Roof, who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, from purchasing a Glock 41 semiautomatic pistol. The crux of the litigation centered on whether the Government was immune from liability under the FTCA’s discretionary function exception and the Brady Act's immunity provisions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Gregory and joined by Judge Diaz, reversed the district court's decision that had previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the Government was not immune under the FTCA’s discretionary function exception nor under the Brady Act’s statutory immunity provision in this context.

The court concluded that the NICS Examiner’s failure to follow mandatory Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) constituted negligent performance not protected by the discretionary function exception. Additionally, the Brady Act’s immunity provision, which the district court had erroneously interpreted as shielding the Federal Government, was clarified to apply only to federal employees, not the Government itself. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced previous cases to build its legal foundation, including:

• BERKOVITZ v. UNITED STATES, 486 U.S. 531 (1988): Established the two-step test for the discretionary function exception under the FTCA.
• Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, 842 F.3d 853 (4th Cir. 2016): Affirmed strict construction of the discretionary function exception.
• Holbrook v. United States, 673 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2012): Clarified that internal agency procedures do not automatically provide immunity unless they impose mandatory directives.
• Tiffany v. United States, 931 F.2d 271 (4th Cir. 1991): Highlighted the importance of not undermining internal agency efficiency with excessive litigation.
• Smith v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, 184 F. App'x 311 (4th Cir. 2006, unpublished): Demonstrated that violating agency guidelines can negate immunity.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the two-step discretionary function test from Berkovitz:

1. Determining whether the conduct involves judgment or choice.
2. Assessing whether the decision was based on public policy considerations.

FTCA Immunity Analysis:
The court identified three bases for liability: the Examiner’s negligent background check, the FBI’s policy decision to exclude the National Data Exchange (N-DEx) from NICS research, and the Government’s failure to maintain data integrity. It concluded that:

• The Examiner failed to follow mandatory SOPs, which constituted negligence not protected by the discretionary function exception.
• The decision to exclude N-DEx access was a policy choice shielded by the discretionary function exception.
• The claim regarding data integrity was dismissed due to lack of statutory support.

Brady Act Immunity Analysis:
The court clarified that the Brady Act’s immunity provision, 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(6), applies solely to federal employees and not the Federal Government as an entity. Thus, the Government could not invoke this immunity to shield itself from liability.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for governmental liability in cases involving the negligent performance of firearm background checks:

• Clarification of Immunity Boundaries: The ruling distinguishes between individual federal employees and the Federal Government, limiting immunity protections to specific actors.
• Mandate Adherence to SOPs: Federal agencies must ensure strict compliance with mandatory procedures, as failure to do so may result in liability under the FTCA.
• Policy Review and Reform: The decision underscores the need for ongoing evaluation and improvement of background check systems to prevent similar oversights.
• Litigation Precedent: Future lawsuits aiming to hold the Government accountable for system failures will rely on this precedent to assess immunity claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

The FTCA allows individuals to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the government. However, it includes exceptions, such as the discretionary function exception, which protects the government from liability for decisions involving judgment or choice related to public policy.

Discretionary Function Exception

A provision within the FTCA that exempts the government from liability for acts that involve policy judgments or discretionary choices. To overcome this exception, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the government’s actions were not discretionary and amounted to negligence.

Brady Act and NICS

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandates background checks for firearm purchases. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is the database that facilitates these checks by pulling information from various criminal records databases.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)

SOPs are detailed, written instructions to achieve uniformity of the performance of a specific function. Within NICS, SOPs guide Examiners on how to conduct background checks, including steps to follow when initial searches yield inconclusive or delayed results.

Legal Custodian

A legal custodian is a person appointed by law to manage the legal rights and obligations of a minor. In this case, Felicita Sanders acted as the legal custodian for K.M., a minor affected by Roof's actions.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit's decision in Sanders v. United States marks a critical juncture in the discourse surrounding governmental accountability in the realm of firearm regulation enforcement. By delineating the boundaries of immunity under the FTCA and the Brady Act, the court has reinforced the principle that federal agencies must adhere strictly to mandated procedures, especially when public safety is at stake.

Furthermore, this judgment emphasizes the judiciary's role in scrutinizing government actions, ensuring that policy-driven decisions do not obfuscate accountability. As the legal landscape evolves, this case serves as a benchmark for assessing the balance between governmental discretion and the rights of individuals seeking redress for systemic failures.

Ultimately, the reversal and remand of the district court’s dismissal underscore the imperative for continuous improvement and rigorous compliance within federal systems tasked with safeguarding public welfare.