THE ROLE OF THE CIVIL DIVISION AND ITS ATTORNEYS
As you plan your future career in the law, we invite you to consider a challenging and rewarding position as an attorney in the Civil Division. With over 600 attorneys, Civil is the largest Legal Division in the Department of Justice, and we offer new attorneys experiences that are unsurpassed elsewhere in the legal profession. We are committed to diversity in the work place, and welcome exceptional legal professionals whose insight and experiences will enhance our representation of the government and the American people.
The Civil Division represents more than 100 federal agencies,
individual employees, Members of Congress, the federal judiciary, and the people
of the
United States - an impressive
array of clients. The subject matter of the Division's litigation is as broad and
diverse as the activities of the government itself. Many of its cases have significant
domestic and foreign policy implications. The Civil Division defends the
United States
in suits challenging the constitutionality, lawfulness, or propriety of Presidential
initiatives, federal statutes, and government programs and actions. It initiates
litigation to enforce various federal statutes, including the nation's consumer
protection and immigration laws, and defends against challenges to those statutes
and associated enforcement activities. The Division handles litigation involving
billions of dollars in areas such as fraud, international trade, patents, bankruptcies,
claims against the government, and foreign litigation. The Division also litigates
general tort claims, including those that involve toxic substances, aviation, admiralty,
and the defense of federal officials sued personally for official actions. Our
achievements include recovering more than $500 million lost through fraud against
health care and defense programs, protecting the President's foreign policy initiatives,
defending Congressional efforts to shield children from pornography on the Internet,
and protecting the Treasury from billions of dollars in claims arising from the
government's commercial activities.
As a result of the demanding caseload, new attorneys are immediately
involved in handling significant litigation for the Division. Unlike their
counterparts in the private sector, Civil Division attorneys receive substantial
responsibility for cases from the start. They determine strategy and tactics, prepare
pleadings and briefs, and manage discovery and trial proceedings. In some instances
attorneys handle cases alone while, in others, they share responsibility with another
attorney or team of attorneys. Typically, during the first year with the Division,
a new attorney may expect to have "first chair" litigation responsibility, either
at the trial level or in the appellate courtroom.
The Civil Division's role within the legal community is one of
responsibility, visibility, and importance. We invite you to consider joining us
in serving the
United States with
honor and integrity.
WHAT DOJ OFFERS YOU
In addition to an opportunity to be the counsel of record for
the United States in cases having critical
financial, political, and social impact, there are some other advantages that come
with being a federal employee. No, we don't have the salaries that some major law
firms offer, and yes, we fly coach. However, you will get all of the rewards of
working for your country as well as excellent benefits.
DOJ attorneys have access to a full range of benefits and resources
including,
0-3 years of government service
= 13 days per year
Eligible participants 50 years of age or older are permitted
to make ACatch-up contributions@ of $5,000 per year into TSP accounts
AUTOMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Civil Division attorneys have access to the full range of
services needed to manage the tasks associated with litigation. Each attorney
in the Division is connected through personal computer to the Justice Consolidated
Operating Network (JCON). Through JCON, attorneys can access legal research
tools such as Westlaw and Lexis, as well as E‑mail, the Internet and the Department
of Justice's own Intranet. JCON also provides staff support and a telephone
"Help Desk" so that employees can get answers to their computing questions.
The Division also employs modern computer and imaging technology
to store and retrieve massive volumes of materials enhancing the legal staff's
effectiveness in conducting discovery, preparing for depositions, and presenting
evidence at trials. Attorneys can identify and locate essential documents in
a fraction of the time that would be required without automation. Civil Division
attorneys devote their time and effort to dealing with issues of law, rather
than swimming through a sea of documents in search of elusive facts.
Where circumstances warrant, such as in cases involving the
evaluation of statistical data, completely customized databases can be created.
Other special services, such as obtaining auditors, translators, and expert
witnesses, are provided as the needs of the case demand. Laptop computers provide
attorneys with access to office automation and their litigation support databases
from home, while on travel, or at remote trial sites, wherever litigation takes
them.
The Case Management System tracks cases from receipt through
the trial and appellate stages, and into the accounts receivable stage. This
database is the Division's primary tool for controlling and tracking its cases.
The Automated Records Tracking System tracks the location and contents of case
files that reside in the Division's file rooms.
Collectively, all of these features provide Civil Division attorneys with a modern, fully automated law office environment.
APPELLATE STAFF
Employs approximately 60 lawyers
Responsible for the appellate work of the entire Civil Division
Handles the many cases that are appealed directly from administrative agencies to the courts of appeals
The Appellate Staff was established in 1953 by Warren Burger,
then Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division. Attorneys on the Staff
draft briefs and argue cases in the courts of appeals. In addition, each attorney
participates in drafting various documents for the United States Supreme Court,
including petitions for certiorari and briefs on the merits.
Examples
of our practice
The Staff's broad and varied litigation includes constitutional
issues of individual liberties, issues of societal and collective rights exercised
by the government and issues affecting national security and executive authority.
For example, the Appellate Staff has been involved in several cases challenging
state AMegan's Laws,@ laws that protect children by requiring released sex offenders
to register with state officials and permitting the state to publish their identities
so that communities can be aware of the presence of these sex offenders.
In Global Relief Foundation v. O'Neill, the Appellate
Staff successfully defended against challenges to actions taken by the Secretary
of Treasury pursuant to the global terrorism financing executive order issued
by President Bush. Global Relief, a charitable organization with ties to Hamas,
a foreign terrorist organization, had claimed that the blocking, in aid of investigation,
of their bank accounts and business records violated the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act and the Constitution.
The Appellate Staff also handles cases with enormous potential
impact on the public fisc. In Schism v. United States, for example,
plaintiffs sought free lifetime medical care (for themselves and their dependants),
contending that the Government induced them to serve in the military by recruiters'
repeated promises that, upon retirement, they and their dependents would be
entitled to such care. The government advised the appellate court that the
Department of Defense had estimated that the panel's decision could potentially
lead to claims by 1.5 million individuals for more than $15 billion in damages.
The Appellate Staff is also actively participating in important
litigation concerning campaign finance reform. McConnell v. FEC involves
a challenge to the constitutionality of various provisions of the Bipartisan
Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, popularly known as the McCain-Feingold
statute, which imposes various restrictions on the financing of federal election
campaigns.
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH
Civil Fraud
attorneys litigate many of the Division's cases that have the highest monetary
stakes. Working with the U.S. Attorneys' offices, Branch attorneys recover
hundreds of millions of dollars each year from individuals and corporations
who have defrauded the government through federal contracts, Medicare and other
federal health insurance programs, subsidies, grants, and loans ‑‑ wherever
the government's money is at stake. A primary source for the section's cases
are actions filed by whistle‑blowers pursuant to the qui tam provisions
of the False Claims Act.
Example
of our practice
HCA (formerly Columbia/HCA), the largest for-profit hospital
chain in the country, has been the subject of one of the most significant health
care fraud investigations ever launched by the Government. DOJ attorneys pursued
Government initiated claims as well as numerous qui tam actions in multi-district
litigation alleging that HCA had fraudulently billed Medicare and other federal
health insurance programs for outpatient laboratory, inpatient, and home health
services; had inflated hospital cost reports; and had paid illegal kickbacks.
The Government reached a partial settlement with HCA in December 2000 for $745
million. In December 2002, HCA tentatively agreed to pay an additional $631
million to resolve its outstanding liability to the Government.
National Courts
attorneys working on Contract Disputes and other Court of Federal Claims matters
serve as the "U.S. Attorney" for the United States Court of Federal Claims and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This includes contract
cases arising under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 and bid protest actions
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Examples
of our practice
Government
Contracts and Commercial Litigation
National Courts attorneys litigate primarily before the Court
of Federal Claims, handling a number of large, complex cases with significant
legal issues and billions of tax-payer dollars at stake. In the Winstar cases,
plaintiffs seek over $30 billion in claimed damages resulting from the Financial
Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), which
eliminated questionable accounting practices allegedly guaranteed in long-term
contracts with thrift regulators. In July 1996, the Supreme Court held that
the government was liable in three early cases, resulting in a tidal wave of
litigation. A case management order was adopted, and a dozen cases were slated
for "priority" trials, with the remaining cases scheduled to be released for
discovery in annual "waves" of 30 each. National Courts attorneys handle all
aspects of litigating these cases, including discovery, dispositive motions,
trials, appeals, and settlements.
Appellate
Practice
National Courts attorneys are responsible for handling appeals
before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from decisions of the Court
of Federal Claims, agency contract appeals boards, the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims, petitions for review of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
decisions under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and a limited number of
appeals from Federal district courts. In two MSPB appeals, for example, the
Supreme Court sustained the authority of Federal agency managers to determine
who should have access to classified information (Dept. of the Navy v. Egan),
and to discipline Federal employees for lying to investigators (Erickson
v. United States).
Customs and International Trade
attorneys represent the United
States
in all international trade and customs matters before the Court of International
Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Branch attorneys
defend the imposition of special duties upon dumped or subsidized imports, prosecute
civil customs fraud violations, and counterattacks against our international
trade agreements.
Example
of our practice
In Corus Group PLC v. Bush, a Dutch steel producer
together with various affiliated parties challenged the President's proclamation
imposing a tariff rate quota and an increase of duties with respect to an array
of steel products from numerous countries. This proclamation followed determinations
by the International Trade Commission that certain steel products were being
imported into the United States
in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury,
or threat of serious injury, to the U.S. steel industry.
Branch attorneys successfully defended against the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and obtained summary judgment upon behalf of the government.
General Corporate/Financial Litigation
attorneys conduct affirmative and defensive litigation to promote and protect
the interests of the United
States in commercial matters involving large
sums of money. These matters include corporate restructuring proceedings, contract
disputes, and federal loan, subsidy and insurance programs.
Examples
of our practice
Attorneys have represented various federal agencies with
monetary claims and regulatory interests in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases
of various airlines, including U.S. Airways and United Airlines. Additionally,
section attorneys have worked to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in
Medicare overpayments and health care fraud in numerous chapter 11 bankruptcy
proceedings, including five of the seven largest nursing home chains - each
owning approximately 300 to 450 facilities.
Intellectual Property
attorneys defend the United States against allegations of
patent and copyright infringement in the United States Court of Federal Claims
and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Examples
of our practice
A patent
case brought against the government
In Pfund v. United States, the plaintiff sought over
$100 million in compensation claiming that laser communication systems built
for various government agencies infringed his patents. After a three-week trial
and extensive post-trial briefing, the Court of Federal Claims found that the
government had proved by "clear and convincing evidence" that the asserted patent
claims were invalid because the patented invention would have been "obvious."
This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
A
copyright and trademark suit brought on behalf of a government agency
In
United States
v. The Washington Mint, a copyright and trademark suit was brought on behalf
of the United States Mint for its infringement of the United States's
copyright in the obverse design of the new Golden Dollar coin featuring Sacagawea,
and for trademark damages for use of the confusingly similar trade name "The
Washington Mint." The district court issued the requested injunction and required
a disclaimer to accompany any advertising by the Washington Mint of any United
States Mint product. The United States
also recovered substantial royalties.
Foreign Litigation
attorneys coordinate and oversee the representation of the
U.S.
in foreign proceedings. Attorneys also represent the government in some domestic
cases involving questions of international and foreign law.
Examples
of our practice
In a case of first impression, a Canadian appellate court
affirmed a lower court ruling recognizing and enforcing a $4.6 million judgment
of a U.S. district court
based on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Separately, the U.S. recently recovered $3 million from bank accounts
in Antigua for the Federal Trade Commission
to provide restitution to victims of fraud resulting from an illegal pyramid
scheme operated over the Internet.
FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
Activities in the Federal Programs Branch include the defense
against constitutional challenges to federal statutes, suits to overturn government
policies and programs, and attacks on the legality of government decisions.
The Federal Programs Branch also initiates litigation to enforce regulatory
statutes and to remedy statutory and regulatory violations. Federal Programs'
attorneys have the opportunity to handle diverse issues from a variety of subject
areas.
National Security, Foreign Relations,
and Law Enforcement B Attorneys are involved in
critical and highly visible litigation on behalf of the Departments of State,
Treasury and Defense. The Branch has represented these departments in cases
involving international terrorism and treaties.
Interstate and Foreign Commerce
B Attorneys represent the Treasury Department in litigation challenging economic
sanctions and commerce laws.
Government Agencies and Corporations
B Attorneys defend a variety of agencies, including the Postal Service, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the White House.
Nondiscrimination Personnel Litigation
B Attorneys handle cases involving constitutional, statutory, and other issues
of appointment and removal of officers and employees of the
United States, including Presidential appointees.
This area also includes First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and other constitutional
challenges to government‑wide statutes.
Discrimination in Employment Litigation
B Attorneys defend against suits alleging discrimination in federal employment
under the U.S. Constitution and a number of federal statutes and Executive Orders.
The Federal Programs Branch defends a number of complex Title VII class actions,
as well as high‑profile or novel individual cases. Since the authorization
of compensatory damages and jury trials in 1991, this field of litigation has
seen explosive growth in both the number and complexity of cases.
Human Resources
B Attorneys focus on challenges to the wide variety of programs administered
by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education.
Interior, Agriculture, and Energy Concerns B Attorneys handle a variety of cases including USDA's commodity marketing and promotion order programs, the Food Stamp program, and meat safety and inspection services.
Housing and Community Development
B Attorneys address housing and housing‑related cases involving the rights of
tenants in federally‑subsidized housing, the government's obligations to public
housing authorities (PHAs), the disposition of HUD‑owned mortgages, rural housing
programs, and housing for the homeless.
Freedom of Information and Privacy
B Attorneys defend against lawsuits seeking documents used or created by government
agencies. This includes litigation over materials related to FBI actions and
the documents related to FBI investigations, including the FBI's crime lab and
its handling of evidence.
Regulatory Enforcement and Defensive
Banking Litigation B Attorneys ensure compliance
with federal statutes and regulations by initiating enforcement actions on behalf
of federal agencies.
Disability Litigation
B Attorneys handle nationwide, class-action lawsuits attempting to effect substantive
changes in the Social Security Administration's regulations and procedures.
Examples
of our practice
Affirmative
Litigation
The Federal Programs Branch is responsible for civil penalty
actions, subpoena enforcement actions, and suits for injunctive relief based
on statutory and constitutional violations. For example, the Branch filed an
action on behalf of the Department of Energy against the Governor of South Carolina
seeking injunctive relief to prevent the blockade of surplus plutonium to federal
facilities in South Carolina. The Branch also brought an action
against the Pacific Maritime Association and the International Longshore & Warehousemen's
Union to enjoin an ongoing lockout at all 29 ports along the west
coast.
International
Terrorism
Since September 11, 2001, the Federal Programs Branch has
played a significant role in the on-going implementation of the President's
global terrorism executive order, by which the assets of hundreds of terrorists
or their financiers have been frozen. The Branch has also defended against
attempts by designated entities to challenge the statutory and constitutional
authority of the President to freeze their assets, as well as the underlying
factual bases supporting their designations. The Branch has also represented
the Departments of State, Treasury, and Defense in cases in which victims of
international terrorism have tried to satisfy multi-million dollar court judgments
that these victims have obtained against sovereign nations. The plaintiffs
have endeavored to attach assets in the United States that are "blocked" pursuant
to government sanction programs.
Internet/Pornography
Litigation
The Federal Programs Branch has defended Congress' efforts to restrict the access of children to pornography that is otherwise accessible to them over the Internet. Since 1998, the Branch has been defending the Child Online Protection Act, which seeks to restrict access to pornographic Web sites. More recently, the Branch has defended the Children's Internet Protection Act, which conditions the receipt by public libraries of certain federal benefits and discounts on their installing filtering software on their computer terminals that access the Internet.
OFFICE OF CONSUMER LITIGATION
The Office of Consumer Litigation (OCL) is responsible for
criminal and civil litigation and related matters arising under a variety of
federal statutes that protect public health and safety and that are administered
by its client agencies: the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. The Office also enforces statutes that regulate
unfair and deceptive trade practices, and defends government programs and policies
in consumer-related areas. OCL has made its priority protecting consumers who
are, because of our complex economy, unable to protect themselves from dangerous,
unfit, or worthless products.
Examples
of our practice
Generic
Drugs
OCL has led the prosecution of generic drug manufacturers
who obtained FDA approval of various generic drugs through the submission of
falsified test data. Some 19 companies and 60 individuals have either pled
guilty or been convicted at trial. Fines totaling more than $51 million and
jail sentences of up to five years have been imposed. The investigation has
also resulted in the withdrawal of hundreds of new drug approvals, the debarment
of scores of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, and the entry of
civil injunctions against additional firms and individuals.
Odometer
Enforcement
OCL prosecutes individuals who make a business of purchasing
relatively new, high‑mileage, used cars, turning back their odometers, and reselling
them. Typical prosecutions involve hundreds to thousands of odometers that
were rolled back over a period of several years. These conspiracies usually
operate over several states, making detection and prosecution by state authorities
virtually impossible. Victims typically suffer significant economic damage
from these crimes.
Unsafe
Consumer Products
At the request of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), OCL brings civil penalty actions against companies which have introduced unsafe products into inter‑state commerce in violation of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act or which have violated the Consumer Product Safety Act by failing to report to the CPSC that a consumer product may be defective. OCL obtained a civil penalty of $725,000 against a leading manufacturer of children's products for failing to report to the CPSC that openings between steel bars in the company's toddler beds and in accessory guardrails presented a risk to small children of head/neck entrapment and consequent strangulation.
OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
The Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL) responds to the
review petitions by individual aliens challenging orders of removal, denials
of political asylum, and other discretionary immigration benefits. OIL also
handles petitions seeking review of employer sanctions and appeals from district
court immigration decisions. Before the district courts, OIL responds to habeas
corpus actions seeking to thwart detention or deportation, and to individual
suits and class actions challenging immigration policy and enforcement actions.
Such litigation often involves complex issues of administrative law and substantial
constitutional questions. OIL attorneys may be assigned to handle particular
cases individually or in concert with Assistant U.S. Attorneys and INS counsel.
Examples
of our practice
In INS v. Elias‑Zacarias, a claimant sought political
asylum in the United States based upon his alleged fear of recruitment
by guerrilla forces in his native Guatemala. The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed the decision by the Attorney General's delegate to deny
asylum. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the lower federal courts may
not reverse decisions by the Attorney General denying asylum, absent evidence
sufficient to compel any reasonable fact finder to conclude that asylum must
be granted.
In INS v. Lopez‑Mendoza, the plaintiff challenged
his deportation order by alleging that he admitted to being present in this
country illegally only after being subjected to an unlawful arrest by agents
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Supreme Court determined
that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule does not apply to deportation
proceedings. Consequently, the Court found that the civil nature of proceedings
to remove criminal and other illegal aliens from the United States means that the various
Constitutional protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do
not apply in a deportation case.
TORTS BRANCH
Aviation and Admiralty
tort litigation arises from the Government's varied activities in the operation
of the air traffic control system, the regulation of air commerce, weather services,
aeronautical charting, and the government's own civil and military aircraft.
Numerous cases also arise from the extensive flight activities of private, business,
and military aircraft. Cases have ranged from the Korean Air/Guam crash to
the Cavalese cable‑car accident. The office=s admiralty practice is diverse,
with cases ranging from oil spills, ship collisions and groundings, to cargo
damage cases, damaged sea grass beds, search and rescue, and injured seaman
and shore worker cases.
Examples
of our practice
Admiralty
cases
Examples of admiralty cases include the dramatic oil spill
of the EXXON VALDEZ Alaska, the grounding of the QE II off
Cape Cod, the unsuccessful rescue of the passengers on the MORNING
DEW and the Zuanich ship mortgage foreclosure cases. When the EXXON VALDEZ
lost over one million gallons of oil in Prince William
sound in 1989, the Civil Division joined with the Environment and
Natural Resources Division and various criminal prosecuting offices to recover
over $1 billion in damages and fines. As a result of the incident, Congress
enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, under which the Civil Division has since
been involved in recovery of clean‑up costs for several large pollution incidents.
The QE II litigation addressed the responsibilities of the government when it charts United States navigable waters, the obligations of ship captains who operate vessels in those waters, and whether on‑board businesses can recover for consequential losses arising from down‑time for repairs. The MORNING DEW, which was featured on the news show "20/20," implicated the Search and Rescue mission of the Coast Guard. Issues included the duties and capabilities of the Coast Guard in search and rescue activities, the effect of hypothermia on potential survivors and wrongful death damages. The Zuanich cases involved mortgages on tuna fishing boats and other collateral property brought in San Diego, American Samoa, Guam, and New Zealand, wherein the U.S. recovered approximately $28.7 million.
Aviation cases
From dramatic accidents such as the Space Shuttle COLUMBIA
and Friendly Fire incidents to mass disasters such as the crash of Korean Airlines
Flight 801, killing 228 of the 254 passengers and crew aboard, aviation litigation
specialists are regularly involved in protecting the national security interests
of the government. Aviation attorneys defend federal employees whose acts of
negligence are alleged to cause personal injury, wrongful death and property
damage in aviation torts. In addition to these labor-intensive cases, the staff
handles a significant number of cases arising from the activities of general
aviation aircraft. Legal issues such as privileges and immunities provide unique
challenges in addition to handling this exciting area of tort practice.
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
cases are varied. Those cases handled by section litigators include traditional
problems in tort law, such as medical malpractice and other personal injury
litigation, as well as seminal issues arising in areas as diverse as regulatory
agency activities, wild animal attacks in national parks, and professional malpractice.
The section also handles litigation brought by persons who contracted AIDS allegedly
due to government negligence in the course of blood transfusions or other medical
procedures. Section attorneys protect the
United States
from exposure to excessive liability, and from second-guessing of governmental
policy decisions through tort litigation.
Examples
of our practice
FTCA attorneys handled Anderson,
et al. v. United States, in which the court ruled for the
United States finding the decision to set a controlled
burn fire, the United States' acts taken in controlling
that fire, and its suppression efforts, were all protected by the FTCA's discretionary
function exception. In Fleming v. United States the court ruled that
the Mine Safety and Health Administration did not contribute to a massive underground
explosion that killed eight coal miners and injured another. The plaintiffs
claimed that federal inspectors overlooked deficiencies during inspections.
In DeValencia v. United States the court ruled for
the United States following a seven-day trial in which the issue was whether
Department of Veterans Affairs physicians failed to obtain plaintiff's informed
consent for disfiguring facial surgery and did not follow VA's national informed
consent policies and procedures. In Harbert v. United States, the court
ruled that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA shielded the
United States
from liability for injuries the plaintiff sustained when she fell while touring
an historic fort in St. Augustine,
Florida. The Court held that the
Park Service's decisions regarding what safety improvements to make to the historic
fort were protected discretionary acts.
Most of the work of the Environmental Torts (ET) Section
arises from government contractor or military activities, and from environmental
regulatory activity. The cases often involve hundreds of plaintiffs alleging
injuries caused by air, surface water, or groundwater contamination, or by direct
contact with hazardous substances. The contaminants at issue include chemicals,
as well as fuels, carbon monoxide, and bacteria. These actions usually are
brought under the FTCA, but are also premised upon admiralty and contract law,
or various environmental statutes. Due to the complexity of such tort matters,
ET typically handles these issues, rather than delegating them to the United
States Attorneys Offices.
Examples
of our practice
Recent cases involved allegations of environmental contamination
from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California; the Army's
World War I testing of chemical weapons in what is now the Spring Valley neighborhood
of Washington, DC; the Department of Interior's application of herbicide over
a large portion of Idaho; the Department of Agriculture's use of pesticides
in Nebraska, Texas, and Florida; lead in a house sold by HUD in Rhode Island;
and exposure to lead in wastes from mining activities on Native American property
in Oklahoma; as well as allegations of injuries from groundwater contamination
or toxic air exposures at present and former military facilities in more than
a dozen states. In Vallier (the $800 million groundwater contamination
case arising out of the JPL), the ET trial team developed facts dating back
to before World War II establishing that the government had properly exercised
its discretion in leaving environmental compliance to its contractor, co-defendant
and third-party-plaintiff Caltech.
Constitutional and Specialized Tort
Litigation (CSTL) is divided into three separate
areas. Constitutional Tort attorneys represent federal employees in their individual
capacity for alleged violations of the Constitution, common law, and/or statutory
provisions. Vaccine Litigation attorneys defend cases brought under the National
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
(RECA) Program offers monetary compensation to claimants who contracted certain
cancers and other serious diseases as a result of their exposure to radiation
under circumstances outlined by Congress.
Examples of our Practice
Constitutional
Torts
In the landmark decision of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme
Court announced that federal employees can be sued personally for money damages
for the alleged violation of Constitutional rights stemming from official acts.
Federal employees can also be subjected to individual liability on claims based
upon state common law, statutory provisions and even professional licensing
matters. Constitutional Tort attorneys are the principal point of contact for
issues relating to the representation of federal employees, and directly provide
or monitor representation of federal employees in these cases.
Constitutional Tort attorneys represent clients from a wide
variety of agencies and subject matters. For example, cases involve clients
employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland
Security against claims alleging religious bias in anti‑terrorism operations
undertaken after the September 11 attacks, civil suits brought against Department
of Defense and military personnel by detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and other high profile matters. Attorneys
also defend personal‑liability claims challenging policy decisions made by high
ranking government officials in areas as diverse as the conduct of foreign policy,
the operation of the space program and the enforcement of arms embargos.
Vaccine
Litigation
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,
persons injured by the receipt of certain vaccines may recover compensation
from the U.S. Government by filing a petition in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
As an alternative to traditional tort mechanisms, the act established a "no‑fault,"
fast paced, streamlined litigation alternative where the only issues are medical
causation and damages. Vaccine Litigation attorneys defend these cases that
often involve trials lasting a day or two, and may include complicated factual
and medical issues. Many of the cases reflect questions of health policy debated
in the national arena, such as recently voiced concerns with respect to autism.
Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act Program
On October 5, 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act (RECA). The Act offers an apology and monetary compensation
to individuals who contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases as
a result of their exposure to radiation released during above‑ground atmospheric
nuclear weapons tests and as a result of their occupational exposure while employed
in underground uranium mines during the build‑up to the Cold War. The RECA
Program has, to date, awarded over $1 billion and processed tens of thousands
of claims.
APPLYING TO THE CIVIL DIVISION
please visit the Department's Office of
Attorney Recruitment and Management Web site at
www.usdoj.gov/oarm.
The Department of Justice is an Equal Opportunity/Reasonable
Accommodation Employer. Except where otherwise provided by law, there will be no
discrimination because of color, race, regional, national origin, politics, marital
status, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation or on the basis of personal favoritism.
The Department of Justice welcomes and encourages applications from persons with
physical and mental disabilities and will reasonably accommodate the needs of those
persons. The Department is firmly committed to satisfying its affirmative obligations
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to ensure that persons with disabilities have
every opportunity to be hired and advanced on the basis of merit within the Department
of Justice.
Return to the Civil Division Home Page
Return to the Department of Justice Home Page
Last updated 05/03/07