31 U.S.C. § 3724

Claims for damages caused by investigative or law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Attorney General may settle, for not more than $50,000 in any one case, a claim for personal injury, death, or damage to, or loss of, privately owned property, caused by an investigative or law enforcement officer as defined in section 2680(h) of title 28 who is employed by the Department of Justice acting within the scope of employment that may not be settled under chapter 171 of title 28. An officer or employee of the United States Government may not present a claim arising during the scope of employment. A claim may be allowed only if it is presented to the Attorney General within one year after it accrues.(b) A claim may be paid under this section only if the claimant accepts the amount of the settlement in complete satisfaction of the claim against the Government.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 975; Pub. L. 101–203, § 1(a), (b)(1), Dec. 7, 1989, 103 Stat. 1805; Pub. L. 105–362, title X, § 1001(c), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3291.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

3724(a)

31:224b(words before 9th comma and between 10th and 11th commas, 1st, 2d provisos).

Mar. 20, 1936, ch. 159, 49 Stat. 1184.

 

31:224b(note).

Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, § 424(a)(2d par. on p. 847), (b)(related to 2d par. of (a) on p. 847), 60 Stat. 847.

3724(b)

31:224b(words between 9th and 10th commas and between 11th comma and 1st proviso).

3724(c)

31:224b(last proviso).

In subsection (a), the words “of the United States” are omitted as unnecessary. The word “settle” is substituted for “consider, adjust, and determine” for consistency. The words “after January 1, 1934” are omitted as executed. The words “personal injury, death” are substituted for “damages to any person” for clarity. The words “of the Department of Justice” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “that may not be settled under chapter 171 of title 28” are substituted for section 424(a)(2d par. on p. 847) and (b)(related to 2d par. of (a) on p. 847) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (31:224b(note)) because of the restatement. The words “An officer or employee of the United States Government may not present a claim arising during the scope of employment” are substituted for 31:224b(1st proviso) to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 31:224b(2d proviso words after semicolon) is omitted as executed.

In subsection (b), the word “settlement” is substituted for “amount as may be found due to any claimant . . . as a legal claim” for clarity and consistency. The words “by Congress” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (c), the words “A claim may be paid under this section” are added for clarity. The words “of the settlement” are substituted for “determined to be due him under the provisions of this section” for consistency and to eliminate unnecessary words. The word “complete” is substituted for “full and final” to eliminate unnecessary words. The word “satisfaction” is substituted for “settlement” for clarity.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1998—Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 105–362 redesignated subsec. (c) as (b) and struck out former subsec. (b) which read as follows: “The Attorney General shall report annually to the Congress on all settlements made under this section. With respect to each such settlement, the Attorney General shall include a brief statement on the type of the claim, the amount claimed, and the amount of the settlement.”

1989—Pub. L. 101–203, § 1(b)(1), amended section catchline generally, substituting “investigative or law enforcement officers of the Department of Justice” for “the Federal Bureau of Investigation”.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–203, § 1(a)(1), substituted “$50,000” for “$500” and “an investigative or law enforcement officer as defined in section 2680(h) of title 28 who is employed by the Department of Justice” for “the Director or an Assistant Director, inspector, or special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–203, § 1(a)(2), substituted “report annually to the Congress on all settlements made under this section. With respect to each such settlement, the” for “certify to Congress a settlement under this section for payment out of an appropriation that may be made to pay the settlement. The”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–203, § 2, Dec. 7, 1989, 103 Stat. 1805, provided that: “The amendments made by section 1 [amending this section] shall apply to—“(1) any claim arising on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 7, 1989],“(2) any claim pending on such date, and“(3) any claim arising before such date which has not been settled if the time for presenting the claim to the Attorney General under the last sentence of section 3724(a) of title 31, United States Code, has not expired.”

Settlement of Claims for Damage to or Loss of Privately Owned Property

Pub. L. 106–185, § 3(b), Apr. 25, 2000, 114 Stat. 211, provided that:“(1)In general.—With respect to a claim that cannot be settled under chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, the Attorney General may settle, for not more than $50,000 in any case, a claim for damage to, or loss of, privately owned property caused by an investigative or law enforcement officer (as defined in section 2680(h) of title 28, United States Code) who is employed by the Department of Justice acting within the scope of his or her employment.“(2)Limitations.—The Attorney General may not pay a claim under paragraph (1) that—“(A) is presented to the Attorney General more than 1 year after it accrues; or“(B) is presented by an officer or employee of the Federal Government and arose within the scope of employment.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2012–2025 · leading case: Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. SEC. Admin., 896 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. SEC. Admin., 896 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “The criminal law boundaries of the law enforcement proviso are also reinforced by the legislative history of a related statutory provision that incorporates the proviso: 31 U.S.C. § 3724 . That section authorizes the Attorney General to settle, for up to $50,000, claims brought…”
Marulanda v. United States Marshals Serv., 467 F. App'x 590 (9th Cir. 2012). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3724 (a) (allowing the Attorney General to settle claims for losses caused by law enforcement personnel); Hudson v.”
D'Amario v. United States, 56 F. Supp. 3d 249 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). “3 Thus, to state a due process claim against Doe, plaintiff must show that no post-deprivation procedures were available to him.”
United States v. Christy, 883 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D.N.M. 2012). “Not the statute of limitations for filing a claim with the Attorney General under 31 U.S.C. § 3724 . That statute has expired for good, for Norwood never filed anything with the Attorney General.”
Riquene (W.D. La. 2025). · cites it 4× “Along with the administrative process of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 31 U.S.C. § 3724 allows the Attorney General of the United States to settle claims for “personal injury, death, or damage to, or loss of, privately owned property, caused by an investigative or law…”
Pompy v. Monroe Bank & Trust (E.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 3× “e second step, Bishop argues that extension of the Bivens remedy in this instance is barred because the plaintiff had several avenues for “alternative remedies” including (a) filing a pretrial motion to suppress evidence in his federal criminal case, (b) moving to compel a…”
Quinones-Pimentel v. Cannon (D.P.R. 2022). · cites it 3× “31 U.S.C. § 3724 Finally, the Government Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have an alternative remedy under 31 U.”
Donovan G. Davis, Jr. v. Roy Dotson, Jr. (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “31 U.S.C. § 3724 . The fact that a settlement under the statute may not fully compensate Davis for his lost data—which he says was worth around $100,000—does not justify the expansion of Bivens to a new context.”
Monk v. United States (N.D. Ala. 2023). · cites it 2× “The defendants point out that Congress enacted 31 U.S.C. § 3724 (a) that permits the Attorney General to settle death claims attributable to BOP officials up to $50,000.”
Davis v. Dotson (M.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 2× “Additionally, under 31 U.S.C. § 3724 (a), “[t]he Attorney General may settle, for not more than $50,000 in any one case, a claim for .”
Wynn v. Starnes (N.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 2× “Defendant argues that Congress has already fashioned a remedy that applies to Plaintiff’s claims, 31 U.S.C. § 3724 , which would further foreclose the court’s recognition of an implied cause of action.”
Daniels v. Marleihia Harper (E.D. Pa. 2024). · cites it 2× “Specifically, 31 U.S.C. § 3724 (a) permits the Attorney General to settle claims up to $50,000 for losses caused by an investigative or law enforcement officer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.