## Facts

- Harold Blauer, a private patient being treated for depression at a New York State psychiatric hospital, was injected with a synthetic mescaline derivative.
- The derivative had been supplied under a secret U.S. Army program intended to test the drug’s psychiatric effects on humans and assess its suitability for chemical-warfare use.
- The hospital’s contract prohibited disclosure of information about the Army’s involvement and the source and purpose of the drug.
- Blauer suffered severe reactions after an injection and died in January 1953.
- Blauer’s estate filed a negligence and wrongful-death action against the State of New York in the New York Court of Claims, unaware of the Army program.
- David Marcus, an assistant attorney general for New York, learned of the Army’s involvement and met with Army and federal government attorneys.
- The federal attorneys objected to disclosure of the Army contract and the experimental purpose of the injections and allegedly urged steps to keep the contract materials out of subpoena reach, including moving files to another state.
- To prevent disclosure during the Court of Claims litigation, the estate’s interview of the treating physician, Dr. Paul Hoch, was repeatedly postponed.
- The estate settled the Court of Claims action for $15,000, without being told of the Army’s role or the experimental nature of the drug.
- At a settlement-related hearing, Hoch testified that administration of the drug was not consistent with accepted medical practice, but he also falsely suggested the drug was commonly used and had been administered for diagnostic purposes.
- About two decades later, public revelations about the Army’s experimental mescaline program led Elizabeth Barrett, as administratrix of the estate, to sue in federal court, alleging that federal officials and attorneys participated in a post-death concealment that deprived the estate of a fair opportunity to pursue meaningful relief.
- The federal attorney defendants asserted immunity from suit based on their status and functions as government lawyers; the district court rejected immunity in relevant part, and the federal defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether federal officials and federal government attorneys accused of participating in a concealment plan connected to civil litigation were entitled to absolute immunity.
2. Whether, at the pleading stage, qualified immunity required dismissal of claims alleging deliberate concealment and interference with the estate’s ability to pursue relief.
3. Whether the prior New York Court of Claims settlement and related limitations principles barred later federal claims, including claims framed as injuries from the later cover-up rather than from the underlying death.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit rejected a blanket claim of absolute immunity for the federal defendants for alleged conduct aimed at concealing the Army program and manipulating the civil litigation process.
- The court held that, on the allegations as pleaded, the challenged acts were not automatically protected advocacy functions and therefore could not be dismissed solely on absolute-immunity grounds.
- The court ruled that qualified immunity could not be resolved as a categorical bar on the pleadings where the complaint alleged intentional concealment and other misconduct designed to obstruct a claimant’s access to truthful information in judicial proceedings.
- The court distinguished between claims seeking recovery for the original injury (Blauer’s death) and claims seeking recovery for separate harms allegedly caused by the later concealment; it left in place significant barriers to relitigation of the underlying wrongful-death recovery while permitting further proceedings on properly framed cover-up claims.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute immunity turns on function, not job title; it is confined to a narrow class of acts closely tied to the role of an advocate in adjudicative proceedings.
- Government attorneys do not receive absolute immunity for conduct that is plausibly alleged to be non-advocacy misconduct—such as planning concealment, keeping documents out of compulsory process, or influencing witnesses to hide material facts—simply because it occurs in a litigation setting.
- Qualified immunity generally shields officials only when their conduct is objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law; at the motion-to-dismiss stage, courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true and do not resolve disputed factual questions about intent and conduct.
- A prior settlement and judgment may preclude renewed recovery for the same underlying tort, but claims alleging a later, distinct injury from an alleged concealment scheme require separate analysis rather than automatic dismissal as duplicative.
- When concealment prevents timely discovery of material facts, accrual and timeliness questions may differ for claims aimed at the concealment-related harm versus claims aimed at the original injury.

## Conclusion

Barrett v. United States held that federal officials and government attorneys accused of orchestrating or assisting a concealment plan connected to the Blauer litigation could not claim automatic absolute immunity for that alleged conduct, and that qualified immunity could not dispose of the case on the pleadings where intentional deception and obstruction were alleged; while major barriers remained to relitigating recovery for the original 1953 death, the Second Circuit allowed further proceedings on claims targeting distinct harms from the later cover-up and remanded for continued litigation.


Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565 (1986)