## Facts

- The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), acting as receiver for a failing thrift, terminated Meyer, a senior officer.
- Meyer sued in federal court seeking money damages, alleging he was discharged without notice and a hearing in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- Meyer pursued an implied constitutional tort remedy modeled on Bivens, but directed the claim against FSLIC as an entity.
- A jury returned a verdict for Meyer.
- During appellate proceedings, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) became FSLIC’s statutory successor and continued the case.

## Issues

1. Whether a damages claim alleging a federal constitutional violation is “cognizable” under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) such that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is the exclusive remedy and bars a direct action against the agency.
2. Whether FSLIC’s statutory “sue-and-be-sued” clause waives sovereign immunity for a constitutional tort damages claim.
3. Whether a Bivens-type implied cause of action for damages may be maintained directly against a federal agency.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that Meyer’s constitutional tort claim was not “cognizable” under § 1346(b); therefore, the FTCA did not provide an exclusive remedy that displaced the claim.
- The Court held that FSLIC’s “sue-and-be-sued” clause presumptively waived sovereign immunity for claims of this type.
- The Court held that Bivens does not extend to federal agencies; no implied constitutional damages action lies directly against FSLIC/FDIC.
- Because Meyer’s claim depended on an implied agency-level Bivens remedy, the judgment for Meyer could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A claim is “cognizable” under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) only if liability exists “in accordance with the law of the place,” meaning state law; constitutional tort claims arise under federal law and therefore fall outside § 1346(b).
- The FTCA’s exclusivity provision applies only to claims that are cognizable under § 1346(b), not to federal constitutional tort claims.
- A statutory “sue-and-be-sued” clause is read broadly and presumptively waives sovereign immunity absent a clear showing of congressional intent to limit that waiver.
- Bivens remedies are confined to suits against individual federal officers; implying a damages action against federal agencies is not supported by Bivens’s deterrence rationale and is generally for Congress to authorize.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that although the FTCA did not preempt the suit and a sue-and-be-sued clause waived immunity, federal agencies are not proper defendants in Bivens-type constitutional damages actions, requiring reversal of Meyer’s judgment against the FDIC.


F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)