42 U.S.C. § 5148

Nonliability of Federal Government

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Federal Government shall not be liable for any claim based upon the exercise or performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a Federal agency or an employee of the Federal Government in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: St. Tammany Par. Ex Rel. Davis v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 556 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2009).
St. Tammany Par. Ex Rel. Davis v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 556 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5148 , bars a suit based on the federal government’s decision not to approve funding for debris removal in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”
Freeman v. United States, 556 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5148 , bars a suit based on the federal government’s handling of relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.”
In Re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 521 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “42 U.S.C. § 5148 . Elsewhere in Title 42 of the Code, a different section provides that "a covered person shall be immune from suit and liability.”
Joseph Dureiko, as Tr., & S. Pine Isle Corp. v. United States, 209 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 4× “Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (“Stafford Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 5148 (1994), that Pine Isle was collaterally estopped from disputing the discretionary nature of the government’s actions, and that the release signed by Pine Isle barred its claims.”
Davis v. United States, 597 F.3d 646 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “The Government asserted as a defense the immunity provisions of the Robert T.”
In Re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 456 F. Supp. 2d 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 3× “]” FRP at 8; 42 U.S.C. § 5148 . To the extent the actions challenged were discretionary in nature, allowing for “ ‘second-guessing’ of these judgments .”
Benzman v. Whitman, 523 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008). “First, EPA argued that the discretionary function provision of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5148 , precluded judicial review because the agency decisions on which the APA count is based were discretionary.”
In Re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 469 F. Supp. 2d 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). · cites it 2× “Law §§ 20 to 29-g (McKinney 2006); the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5148 , and other sources, required fact-intensive anal-yses and a fuller record than that which was presented by Defendants’ motions.”
McWaters v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 436 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. La. 2006). · cites it 4× “The APA specifically states that it does not provide review of agency action to the extent that “statutes preclude judicial review” or “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(1), (2) (emphasis added).”
Ass'n of Cmty. Organizations for Reform Now v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 463 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 701 (a)(1), (2) (stating that the APA does not provide for review of agency action to the extent that “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law”); 42 U.S.C. § 5148 (stating that under the Stafford Act, "the Federal Government shall not be liable for any claim…”
Barbosa v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 263 F. Supp. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 3× “See 42 U.S.C. § 5148 . Further, Defendants argue that, even if the court has jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief because its IHP rules and regulations, as currently constituted, do exactly what Congress commanded.”
Santos v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 327 F. Supp. 3d 328 (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C § 5148. Transitional Sheltering Assistance TSA is a Public Assistance program authorized under section 403 of the Stafford Act.”
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.