## Facts

- Three servicemen served in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm.
- Their wives and children alleged the military negligently administered “investigational” and defective drugs and negligently exposed the servicemen to toxic pesticides and other substances to prepare for possible chemical or biological attacks.
- After the servicemen returned, each couple had a child born with Goldenhar’s Syndrome, a rare congenital condition causing deformities.
- Plaintiffs alleged the servicemen’s exposures were retained and transmitted to the wives and fetuses, causing the children’s birth defects.
- Plaintiffs filed administrative claims under the Military Claims Act (MCA), which the Air Force Judge Advocate General (acting under delegated authority) denied.
- Plaintiffs then sued in federal district court seeking (1) judicial review of the MCA denials and (2) damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligence, arguing the negligence was “directed at” the wives and children though implemented on servicemembers.
- The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to MCA review and held the FTCA claims barred by the Feres doctrine and FTCA exceptions; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review a service’s denial of claims under the Military Claims Act.
2. Whether the FTCA permits suits by servicemembers’ wives and children for alleged derivative genetic injuries traceable to military medical and protective measures applied to servicemembers incident to service, or whether such claims are barred by Feres and FTCA exceptions.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all actions.
- The court held the MCA provides an administrative compensation scheme without judicial review; therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Judge Advocate General’s MCA denials.
- The court held the FTCA claims were barred because the alleged injuries had their genesis in acts toward servicemembers incident to military service and were inseparable from military decisions.
- The court also concluded the challenged wartime choices about inoculations and protective measures fell within FTCA statutory exceptions, including the discretionary function exception.

## Legal Principles

- The Military Claims Act does not authorize judicial review of claim denials; absent an express waiver, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review MCA determinations.
- Under Feres, the FTCA does not permit suits arising from injuries to servicemembers incident to service; civilians cannot avoid Feres by pleading derivative or consequential harms rooted in service-related injuries.
- Claims challenging military choices about troop protection and medical countermeasures in wartime commonly implicate policy-based discretion and may be independently barred by the FTCA’s discretionary function exception.
- Separation-of-powers concerns support judicial noninterference in matters tied to military governance and wartime decision-making absent clear congressional authorization.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that MCA denials are not subject to judicial review and that the FTCA does not allow servicemembers’ families to recover for alleged genetic birth defects derived from servicemembers’ exposure to drugs and toxins incident to service, because such claims are barred by Feres and by FTCA exceptions for discretionary military policy decisions.


Minns v. United States, 155 F.3d 445 (4th Cir. 1998)