Whether the Feres doctrine's bar against servicemembers' tort claims is limited to injuries directly caused by military duties or should be narrowed/overruled

In Brooks v. United States , 337 U.S. 49 (1949), the Court held that servicemembers traveling in their vehicle on personal business could bring a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries they suffered because of a governmental employee’s negligent driving. A year later, in Feres v. United States , 340 U.S. 135 (1950), the Court held that servicemembers could not bring claims “where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” The Court has left unresolved the legal test for determining what is “incident to service” and the dividing line between Brooks and Feres . The circuits are in open conflict over this question. Here, the Eighth Circuit held that an active-duty servicemember who was killed by a negligent government employee while riding his motorcycle home for lunch was nonetheless injured incident to service and, thus, his family’s claim was barred. Other circuits have allowed servicemembers’ claims under similar facts. This conflict about the test for “incident to service” has barred servicemembers from bringing tort claims for injuries with no material connection to their military duties or military service. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the Feres doctrine’s bar against a servicemember’s ability to bring tort claims “incident to service” is only triggered when the injury was directly caused by th e servicemember’s military duties or orders. ii 2. Whether the Court should limit or overrule Feres because its limitation on servicemembers has no basis in the FTCA’s text and is unworkable.