questioning continued authority of Keifer and its progeny
How later courts described this case
- questioning continued authority of Keifer and its progeny
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROGERS, J., concurring.
ROGERS, Judge.
I concur in the result only. In my view the arguments of Southeastern are wholly without merit.
The Southeastern Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation (Southeastern) cannot claim federal sovereign immunity for the simple reason that it is a state-incorporated nonprofit organization that cannot plausibly be thought to be part of the federal sovereign or under its umbrella of immunity by virtue of a congressional act. See Keifer v. Keifer Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 306 U.S. 381 , 59 S.Ct. 516 , 83 L.Ed. 784 (1939); FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 , 114 S.Ct. 996 , 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). Although the D.C. Circuit sees tension between Keifer and Meyer where federal government corporations are concerned, in this case that issue is academic because Southeastern is not a federal government corporation. See Galvan v. Fed. Prison Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 461, 466-67 (D.C.Cir.1999). Southeastern is not part of the federal sovereign and cannot partake of its immunity from suit.
As for the Plaintiffs FTCA claim, he filed it as a precaution against the possibility that Southeastern might receive federal sovereign immunity. That contingency has been avoided, and the FTCA claim in any event is clearly meritless because the federal government does not supervise the day-to-day operations of Southeastern. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815 , 96 S.Ct. 1971 , 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976). The FTCA claim was therefore rightly dismissed as well.