What Law Governs Federal Officials When They Abuse Power?
Posted on: March 15, 2009 by: admin
Image via Wikipedia
When it comes to suits for damages for abuse of power, federal officials are usually governed by local law. See, e. g., Slocum v. Mayberry,2 Wheat. 1, 10, 12. Federal law, however, supplies the defense, if the conduct complained of was done pursuant to a federally imposed duty (see, e. g., Mayor v. Cooper,6 Wall. 247; cf. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257), or immunity from suit. See Barr v. Matteo, supra; Howard v. Lyons, supra. Congress could, of course, provide otherwise, but it has not done so. Over the years Congress has considered the problem of state civil and criminal actions against federal officials many times. See Hart and Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 1147-1150. But no general statute making federal officers liable for acts committed “under color,” but in violation, of their federal authority has been passed. Congress has provided for removal to a federal court of any state action, civil or criminal, against “any officer of the United States . . . , or person acting under him, for any act under color of such office . . . .” 28 U. S. C. § 1442 (a)(1). That state law governs the cause of action alleged is shown by the fact that removal is possible in a nondiversity case such as this one only because the interpretation of a federal defense makes the case one “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Tennessee v. Davis, supra; Gay v. Ruff,292 U.S. 25, 34. We conclude, therefore, that it is not for us to fill any hiatus Congress has left in this area. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 83 S. Ct. 1441, 373 U.S. 647 (1963).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=72cde8ca-f5dd-4579-b9ca-3a5831d9ea9e)
