US Code

Public Law 119-73 (01/23/2026)

28 U.S.C. § 2671

Definitions

As used in this chapter and sections 1346(b) and 2401(b) of this title, the term “Federal agency” includes the executive departments, the judicial and legislative branches, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the United States, but does not include any contractor with the United States.

section 3006A of title 18“Employee of the government” includes (1) officers or employees of any federal agency, members of the military or naval forces of the United States, members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section 115, 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32, and persons acting on behalf of a federal agency in an official capacity, temporarily or permanently in the service of the United States, whether with or without compensation, and (2) any officer or employee of a Federal public defender organization, except when such officer or employee performs professional services in the course of providing representation under .

section 101(3) of title 32“Acting within the scope of his office or employment”, in the case of a member of the military or naval forces of the United States or a member of the National Guard as defined in , means acting in line of duty.

June 25, 1948, ch. 64662 Stat. 982May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 12463 Stat. 106Pub. L. 89–506, § 880 Stat. 307Pub. L. 97–124, § 195 Stat. 1666Pub. L. 100–694, § 3102 Stat. 4564Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A]114 Stat. 1654Pub. L. 106–518, title IV, § 401114 Stat. 2421(, ; , ; , , ; , , ; , , ; , title VI, § 665(b)], , , 1654A–169; , , .)

Historical and Revision Notes

Act1948

Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, § 40260 Stat. 842Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 941 (, ).

Changes were made in phraseology.

Act1949

section 2671 of title 28This section corrects a typographical error in , U.S.C.

Editorial Notes

Amendments

Pub. L. 106–5182000—, in par. defining “Employee of the government”, inserted “(1)” after “includes” and added cl. (2).

Pub. L. 106–398 inserted “115,” after “members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section” in par. defining “Employee of the government”.

Pub. L. 100–6941988— inserted “the judicial and legislative branches,” after “departments,” in first par.

Pub. L. 97–124section 101(3) of title 321981— inserted “members of the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32,” in definition of “Employee of the government” and “or a member of the National Guard as defined in ” in definition of “Acting within the scope of his office or employment”.

Pub. L. 89–5061966— expanded definition of “Federal agency” to include military departments.

1949—Act , corrected spelling of “office”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2000 Amendment

Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A]114 Stat. 1654

“The amendment made by subsection (b) [amending this section] shall apply with respect to acts and omissions occurring before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act [].”
, title VI, § 665(c)(2)], , , 1654A–169, provided that:

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–694section 8 of Pub. L. 100–694section 2679 of this titleAmendment by effective , and applicable to all claims, civil actions, and proceedings pending on, or filed on or after, , see , set out as a note under .

Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Pub. L. 97–124section 4 of Pub. L. 97–124section 1089 of Title 10Amendment by applicable only with respect to claims arising on or after , see , set out as a note under , Armed Forces.

Effective Date of 1966 Amendment

Pub. L. 89–506section 10 of Pub. L. 89–506section 2672 of this titleAmendment by applicable to claims accruing six months or more after , see , set out as a note under .

Short Title

act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 75360 Stat. 842act June 25, 1948, ch. 64662 Stat. 992This chapter is popularly known as the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Federal Tort Claims Act was previously the official short title of title IV of , , which was classified principally to chapter 20 (§§ 921, 922, 931–934, 941–946) of former Title 28, Judicial Code and Judiciary. Title IV of act , was substantially repealed and reenacted as sections 1346(b) and 2671 et seq. of this title by , , the first section of which enacted this title. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Tables. For distribution of former sections of Title 28 into this title, see Table at the beginning of this title.

Severability

Pub. L. 100–694, § 7102 Stat. 4565

section 1 of this title“If any provision of this Act [see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note under ] or the amendments made by this Act or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this Act and such amendments and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by that invalidation.”
, , , provided that:

Law Enforcement Officer Acting Within Scope of Office or Employment

Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, § 101(h) [title VI, § 627]112 Stat. 2681–480Pub. L. 106–58, title VI, § 623113 Stat. 471

“(a)

Definitions .—

In this section—
“(1)
section 16 of title 18 the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in , United States Code; and
“(2)
section 8401(17) of title 5 the term ‘law enforcement officer’ means any employee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of , United States Code; and any special agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State.
“(b)

Rule of Construction .—

Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act [] and thereafter, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, or any other provision of law relating to tort liability, a law enforcement officer shall be construed to be acting within the scope of his or her office or employment, if the officer takes reasonable action, including the use of force, to—
“(1)
protect an individual in the presence of the officer from a crime of violence;
“(2)
provide immediate assistance to an individual who has suffered or who is threatened with bodily harm; or
“(3)
prevent the escape of any individual who the officer reasonably believes to have committed in the presence of the officer a crime of violence.”
, , , 2681–519, as amended by , , , provided that:

Congressional Findings and Purposes

Pub. L. 100–694, § 2102 Stat. 4563

“(a)

Findings .—

The Congress finds and declares the following:
“(1)
For more than 40 years the Federal Tort Claims Act [see Short Title note above] has been the legal mechanism for compensating persons injured by negligent or wrongful acts of Federal employees committed within the scope of their employment.
“(2)
The United States, through the Federal Tort Claims Act, is responsible to injured persons for the common law torts of its employees in the same manner in which the common law historically has recognized the responsibility of an employer for torts committed by its employees within the scope of their employment.
“(3)
Because Federal employees for many years have been protected from personal common law tort liability by a broad based immunity, the Federal Tort Claims Act has served as the sole means for compensating persons injured by the tortious conduct of Federal employees.
“(4)
Recent judicial decisions, and particularly the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Westfall v. Erwin, have seriously eroded the common law tort immunity previously available to Federal employees.
“(5)
This erosion of immunity of Federal employees from common law tort liability has created an immediate crisis involving the prospect of personal liability and the threat of protracted personal tort litigation for the entire Federal workforce.
“(6)
The prospect of such liability will seriously undermine the morale and well being of Federal employees, impede the ability of agencies to carry out their missions, and diminish the vitality of the Federal Tort Claims Act as the proper remedy for Federal employee torts.
“(7)
In its opinion in Westfall v. Erwin, the Supreme Court indicated that the Congress is in the best position to determine the extent to which Federal employees should be personally liable for common law torts, and that legislative consideration of this matter would be useful.
“(b)

Purpose .—

section 1 of this titleIt is the purpose of this Act [see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note under ] to protect Federal employees from personal liability for common law torts committed within the scope of their employment, while providing persons injured by the common law torts of Federal employees with an appropriate remedy against the United States.”
, , , provided that: