Military members assaulted by fellow troops cannot sue the military. That could change.

A rule created 75 years ago bars military members from suing the government while still on active duty, even in cases when one service member sexually assaults another. But if a new bill becomes law, troops would be allowed to bring lawsuits against the government for negligence in such cases, a change that military advocates say would be a watershed moment that gives military members the same legal rights that civilians have.

The Military Sexual Trauma Accountability Act would allow service members currently on active duty to sue the government directly in cases of sexual assault, sexual harassment, wrongful distribution of intimate images and other misconduct. The bill was introduced in late June by a pair of Senators from opposite ends of the political spectrum, New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Louisiana Republican John Kennedy.

The bill chips away at restrictions created by the Feres Doctrine, a rule that goes back to a 1950 Supreme Court decision that bars current service members from suing the military. Legal experts told Task & Purpose the rule has expanded over time, with the courts arguing that cases seemingly unrelated to direct combat or military training, like sexual assault and medical negligence, have been interpreted as “incident to military service.”

Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force lawyer and military law expert, said the proposed law would create “parity” to two different justice systems that exist for civilians versus troops.

“Money talks, and a civilian who was sexually assaulted by a military member, they could already sue [the Department of Defense] because the Federal Torts Claims Act gives them that,” VanLandingham said. “Why shouldn’t an active duty military member be able to avail themselves of the same thing?”

Assaults often dismissed as part of life in the military

Christine Dunn, a lawyer whose clients include civilians who have sued the federal government over cases of sexual misconduct and institutional negligence, said that the courts have interpreted the Feres Doctrine so broadly that “almost anything a soldier does in their life is considered incident to military service, even if they’re off duty.”

The Pentagon received 8,195 reports of sexual assault in fiscal year 2024, according to the most recent report on sexual misconduct within the ranks, a drop from the previous year. Outside reports analyzing non-Department of Defense data have found that sexual assault rates may be two to four times higher than Pentagon estimates.

“The idea that being raped is ‘incident’ to your military service is so absurd,” Dunn said. “I am hopeful when you start to chip away at the most absurd aspects of the Feres Doctrine, that eventually the whole doctrine crumbles.”

Dwight Stirling, a former Army National Guard lawyer and leading scholar on the Feres Doctrine, said the bill would be a “remarkable change” and perhaps set the stage to let service members sue in other cases that civilians already can, like medical malpractice and employer retaliation.

“That would mark the largest rollback of Feres in history. That would allow an entire group of victims to be able to have a civilian judge to hear and rule on their case, which has never happened before,” Stirling said. “I would then expect that if this bill becomes law, that it would mark the first of a series of rollbacks.”

Congress has taken aim at Feres restrictions before, with mixed results.

In 2019, Congress carved out a Feres Doctrine exception for cases of medical malpractice with the Richard Stayskal Act. The law allows service members to file claims against the Army, Air Force and Navy for negligent medical care, claims that Congress hoped would avoid the need for full lawsuits. Lawyers for the services review those claims and decide whether they are eligible for payments. Data from the services reviewed by Task & Purpose shows that the majority of these malpractice claims are denied.

The new bill goes a step further than the Stayskal system, skipping over a claims system to allow troops to directly bring lawsuits in civilian court under the Federal Torts Claims Act.

Despite long-standing criticisms of how Feres has been interpreted, the Supreme Court has constantly denied to hear cases that challenge the rule.

VanLandingham said that the legislation “sends a message” from Congress to the Supreme Court and the latest legislation could lead to legal changes down the line.

“So much of our law is a result from a dialogue between the legislative and judicial branches. What the court is doing with the Feres Doctrine, they were interpreting statutes. They weren’t interpreting the Constitution. They were interpreting what Congress passed,” she said. “I do think this is opening up the door that nudges the Supreme Court to say ‘we really need to take on one of these cases.’”

Bill could launch 120,000 lawsuits in first 10 years

If passed, the law would allow service members to bring lawsuits against the federal government for the military’s “negligent failure” to prevent and investigate sexual misconduct, according to the bill.

The Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary assessment of the bill estimated that 120,000 people would file successful claims in the first 10 years — most arising from incidents that occurred prior to the law going into effect, according to a democratic Congressional aide. The CBO estimated that the law would cost more than $27 billion at an average cost of about $225,000 per claim.

Shannon Hough, executive director and founder of Shield of Sisters, said the proposal gives survivors back their voice and dignity.

“Someone who was too scared to report while they were active duty can now go back and say, ‘This was never taken care of. I didn’t feel like I was protected, that there would have been retribution of my career,’” Hough said. “They can go back and actually seek that justice.”

Advocates told Task & Purpose that the threat of suits for negligence would cause leaders to pay more attention and instigate cultural change. Two advocates interviewed for this story each cited the death of Navy sailor Angelina Resendiz as a case they hoped the new law might help prevent. Resendiz was strangled to death by a fellow sailor who, authorities later found, had a pattern of sexual and domestic abuse involving four other women, and received an expedited ship transfer at the request of another sailor.

“There were three different ways the military failed to protect any woman that was going to be around him,” Hough said. “[The bill] just kind of adds another layer of accountability and justice that has been missing forever.”