New Bill Challenges 70 Years of Military Legal Immunity

Courthouse facade with media crews setting up outside.

A long‑ignored legal shield that protected Washington from lawsuits over sexual assault in the ranks is finally being challenged, and it could change everything for America’s troops and veterans.

Story Snapshot

New bipartisan bill would let sexually abused service members sue the U.S. government for damages.
For over 70 years, the Feres Doctrine has blocked troops from civil justice for assaults “incident to service.”^[1]
Recent court rulings and the Camp Lejeune Justice Act show Congress can carve out exceptions to Feres.^[6]
Opponents warn about costs and command issues, while survivors demand accountability and basic rights.^[6]

A 70‑Year Legal Wall Between Troops and Justice

Since 1950, the Supreme Court’s Feres v. United States decision has blocked service members from suing the government for injuries that courts label “incident to military service.”^[1] In practice, judges have treated almost anything that happens to a service member as tied to service, including sexual assault and sexual harassment.^[1] This has created a separate and harsh legal world where troops, unlike civilians, cannot use the Federal Tort Claims Act to seek damages when the military fails to protect them.^[1]

Legal scholars and victim advocates say this rule has turned the courthouse door into a brick wall for survivors of sexual assault in uniform.^[1] One analysis notes that for seventy‑two years, federal courts have “barred military servicemembers who are survivors of sexual assault from recovery” under the Federal Tort Claims Act.^[1] That means countless victims were told that the assault was simply part of their service and that the government could never be held to account financially.^[1]

New Bill Targets Feres Shield for Sexual Assault Survivors

A new bipartisan Senate bill would punch a hole in that wall by allowing active‑duty and veteran service members who survive sexual assault to sue the United States for civil damages.^[11] A supporting legal memorandum urges Congress to “circumvent the Feres Doctrine” specifically for these survivors by changing the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combat exception.^[13] The proposal would create a clear path to file claims and have investigations overseen by an independent third party instead of the chain of command that may have failed them.^[13]

The memo suggests Congress follow a model it already used for medical malpractice, where service members can receive compensation for “negligent or wrongful” treatment at military facilities.^[7] This shows lawmakers have already accepted the idea of targeted exceptions when the old rules are unjust.^[7] Advocates argue that creating a similar exception for sexual assault is not anti‑military; it is pro‑justice and pro‑troop, and gives victims a basic civil right that every civilian worker already has in the American workplace.^[3]

Court Victories and Camp Lejeune Point the Way

Recent legal wins have strengthened the case for this bill. In the Spletstoser v. Hyten case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a general’s alleged sexual assault of an aide was not “incident to service,” so the Feres Doctrine could not block her claims.^[5] The court stressed that sexual assault does not serve any military purpose and involved no close military judgment calls.^[5] That cleared the way for the survivor to sue, proving that Feres is not untouchable and that courts can recognize sexual assault as personal wrongdoing, not a duty‑related injury.^[5]

Congress has also chipped away at Feres through the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which lets soldiers who were exposed to toxic water at that base sue the government for negligence.^[6] One legal commentary notes that, combined with Spletstoser, this Act has “severely curtailed” Feres because troops can now sue for negligence in exposure cases and for sexual assault in at least one federal circuit.^[6] Together, these developments show a growing willingness to treat service members as citizens with rights, not as property of the state when they are harmed.

Costs, Command, and the Fight Over Accountability

Opponents of changing Feres say lawsuits would threaten military discipline, strain the chain of command, and cost taxpayers more money.^[6] They argue that sexual assault incidents should stay inside the military justice system and point to existing Pentagon prevention programs as proof that the issue is being handled.^[6] However, critics answer that these programs have not fixed the problem and that the lack of civil liability has removed a key incentive for the military to protect its own people.^[13]

“Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) in introducing the Military Sexual Trauma Accountability Act, bipartisan legislation to help servicemembers and veterans seek accountability when federal government… pic.twitter.com/55VC5UzWxk

— NativeTexan (@NativeTexan_17) June 24, 2026

The supporting memorandum addresses these worries by calling for independent civil oversight, rather than second‑guessing battlefield decisions or combat calls.^[13] It focuses on clear cases where the government violates its own rules or fails to stop known sexual violence.^[8] Advocates say the real threat is not to the chain of command but to constitutional values, when the government tells a class of Americans they have fewer rights simply because they wear the uniform.^[3] For conservative readers who back strong national defense, the core question is simple: should a government that demands sacrifice from our warriors also shield itself when it fails them in the most basic way?