Threatened by a Federal Officer? A New D.C. Circuit Ruling Shows When You Can Sue the Government
Washington is a company town, and the company is the federal government. Hundreds of thousands of people in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia work for federal agencies, live next door to federal employees, or cross paths with federal law enforcement officers. So it matters a great deal that suing the United States for an injury works nothing like suing a driver who ran a red light.
In June 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — the court that oversees federal cases filed in Washington — issued a ruling that makes one part of that system much clearer. In He v. Rubio, No. 24-5034 (D.C. Cir. June 23, 2026), the court revived a family's claim that two federal officers assaulted them at their own front door. The full opinion is available from the court.
What happened at the front door
The facts below come from the family's complaint. At this stage of a case, courts are required to assume the allegations are true; nothing has been proven yet.
Gengshu He worked in IT at the State Department. He alleged that a Bureau of Diplomatic Security officer had targeted him for harassment because he is a Chinese immigrant. On a Friday afternoon in February 2021, while the family was at home preparing for the Chinese New Year and self-quarantining — with signs posted outside declining visitors — someone banged on the front door for more than thirty seconds.
He opened the door with his wife and two young sons huddled behind him and his in-laws nearby. Two men in dark clothing stood on the patio. One was the officer he knew. The officer said he had come to "ambush" him, cursed and shouted at him, reached across the threshold, and grabbed him by the wrist. The children began crying. His wife was trembling.
Then, according to the complaint, the officer turned to one of the young boys, made his fingers into the shape of a gun, pointed it at the child, pressed his thumb down as if firing, laughed, and used a racial slur. Afterward the children had nightmares, the four-year-old wet his bed for several nights, and the grandparents suffered insomnia and depression.
The family sued. The trial court threw out their assault claim, reasoning that the officer's conduct — which it called "threatening" and "deplorable" — still did not put anyone in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm. The D.C. Circuit disagreed and reversed.
Why suing the federal government is different
You cannot simply sue a federal agency the way you would sue a business. The government is immune from suit unless Congress has said otherwise, and for injury claims the main permission slip is the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The FTCA lets you sue the United States for money damages when a federal employee, acting within the scope of the job, injures you under circumstances where "the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." That language, from 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), is the whole ballgame — and we will come back to it.
The rule that usually blocks assault claims, and the exception that doesn't
Here is the trap. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) carves assault and battery out of the FTCA. Ordinarily, if a federal employee assaults you, the FTCA gives you nothing.
But that same subsection contains a proviso: for "acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government," claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution are allowed. The statute defines an investigative or law enforcement officer as any officer of the United States "empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law."
That proviso is why the He family had a case at all. The court noted the family had plausibly alleged the two men were law enforcement officers when the incident occurred.
What the court decided, and what it did not
The D.C. Circuit held that the family's allegations plausibly state a claim for assault. That is a ruling about a motion to dismiss, not a verdict. The family has recovered nothing. The case goes back to the trial court, the government can still contest the facts, and the family may lose.
Two other limits are worth stating plainly:
- Only the family's claim was revived. Mr. He's own claims — employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, and his own FTCA claims — were not. His personal injury claims ran into the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, the workers' compensation system that is generally the exclusive remedy when a federal employee is hurt on the job. That is its own significant hurdle for federal workers.
- The court applied Virginia law, not D.C. law, because the incident happened at the family's home in Annandale.
Three things the ruling makes clear about assault
You do not need to be touched. Assault is about being put in reasonable fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact. The contact itself is battery. This is also the law in D.C., where the Court of Appeals recently restated the same standard — we covered that decision in our post on when frightening treatment becomes a real injury claim.
You can be the victim even if someone else was the target. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, an act aimed at one person can be an assault against a bystander who is reasonably put in fear. That is why the wife, children, and grandparents watching from behind the door could each have a claim.
"Imminent" does not mean the person is standing over you. The government argued the family was never within "striking distance." The court rejected that: a plaintiff need not be within striking distance, only in reasonable fear that harm will arrive without significant delay. Being a few feet away, watching an officer reach inside and grab a family member, was close enough.
Which jurisdiction's law fills in the blank
Remember § 1346(b)(1): the FTCA supplies the right to sue, but the content of the claim comes from "the law of the place where the act or omission occurred."
For our region, that is a genuinely consequential rule. Two people can be treated identically by the same federal officer on the same day and have their claims judged under different bodies of law — D.C., Maryland, or Virginia — depending on which side of a line they were standing on. D.C. and Virginia both follow the Restatement's formulation of assault, so they line up closely here, but the jurisdictions diverge on other doctrines that can decide a case, including how contributory negligence is applied.
If a federal officer confronted you, one of the first questions worth answering is simply: where, precisely, did it happen?
The deadlines that end these cases before they start
More FTCA claims die on deadlines than on the merits. The administrative claim requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) is not a formality — skip it and your case is over no matter how strong the facts are. The time limits in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) are just as strict.
| Step | What the Federal Tort Claims Act requires | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Start with the agency, not the courthouse | You cannot file suit first. A written claim must be presented to the correct federal agency within two years of when the claim accrues. | 28 U.S.C. §§ 2675(a), 2401(b) |
| Wait for an answer | The agency gets six months. If it denies the claim — or simply says nothing for six months — you may treat that as a denial and go to court. | 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) |
| File suit on time | Once the agency mails a final denial by certified or registered mail, you have six months to file. Miss it and the claim is "forever barred." | 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) |
| Which tort law applies | The court applies the law of the place where the act or omission occurred — for our region, D.C., Maryland, or Virginia. | 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) |
| Assault or battery by an ordinary federal employee | Generally excluded from the FTCA. | 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) |
| Assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of process or malicious prosecution by a federal investigative or law enforcement officer | Allowed. This is the exception the He family's claim relied on. | 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) proviso |
| Don't ask the court for more than you asked the agency | Your lawsuit generally cannot seek more than the amount stated in the administrative claim, absent newly discovered evidence or intervening facts. | 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b) |
What this means if a federal officer hurt or threatened you
Write down what happened while it is fresh, including who was present and what each person saw and felt — in the He case, the family members' reactions mattered to the court's analysis. Note the exact address. Identify the agency if you can. Keep any card, email, or letter you were given. Get medical or mental health treatment if you need it, and let the provider know what caused it.
Then move quickly. Two years sounds like plenty of time, but identifying the right agency, assembling the claim, and getting it presented correctly takes longer than people expect, and the six-month clock after a denial is unforgiving.
Talk to a lawyer who handles these claims in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia
Claims against the federal government are technical. The wrong form, the wrong agency, or the wrong date can end a case that should have succeeded — and the answer often depends on which of the three jurisdictions you were in when it happened. Posey Lebowitz PLLC handles injury claims in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.
Call us at (202) 524-0123 or use our contact form for a free consultation.
This article is general information, not legal advice about your case.
