## Facts

- James B. Stanley, a U.S. Army master sergeant, volunteered in 1958 for a program presented as chemical-warfare-related testing.
- Army personnel secretly administered LSD to Stanley as part of a plan to study the drug’s effects on human subjects.
- Stanley alleged he suffered hallucinations, incoherence, memory loss, and personality changes that contributed to his discharge and the end of his marriage.
- In 1975, the Army informed Stanley by letter that he had been given LSD during the 1958 tests.
- Stanley sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligence related to the administration, supervision, and monitoring of the program, and later added constitutional damages claims against individual federal officials under Bivens.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals, on an interlocutory appeal certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) concerning only the Bivens dismissal question, had jurisdiction to address or revive Stanley’s FTCA claim.
2. Whether a servicemember may maintain a Bivens action for damages for injuries arising out of activity “incident to service,” including injuries from clandestine military experimentation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction on the § 1292(b) interlocutory appeal to alter the status of the FTCA claim, which was not properly before it.
- The Court held that no Bivens remedy is available for injuries that arise out of activity incident to military service.
- Because Stanley’s injuries were sustained in the course of his military service, his Bivens claims were barred.

## Legal Principles

- Under Feres v. United States, the FTCA does not permit suits for injuries to servicemembers that arise out of or occur in the course of activity incident to service.
- The same “incident to service” considerations function as “special factors counseling hesitation” that preclude a judicially created damages remedy under Bivens for service-related injuries.
- Courts should not employ a liability standard that requires assessing whether a particular suit sufficiently implicates military discipline, because that inquiry itself entails intrusion into military matters.
- In an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court of appeals’ authority is limited to the certified order and does not extend to claims outside the scope of the certification.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court may not use a § 1292(b) interlocutory appeal to revive an FTCA claim not before it, and that servicemembers cannot obtain Bivens damages for injuries arising from activity incident to military service, even when the alleged misconduct involves secret drug experimentation.


United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)