Brownback v. King
2021 United States Supreme Court case
Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a dismissal for failure to state a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a judgment on the merits that triggers the FTCA's judgment bar on future actions.
Background
Two undercover FBI agents mistakenly identified James King as a suspect and attempted to detain him. Without presenting themselves as police officers, they grabbed King and pushed him against an unmarked police vehicle and took his wallet out of his pocket. Thinking he was being mugged, King resisted the arrest. He was subsequently thrown to the ground and put in a chokehold. Once King regained consciousness, with the officer's arm still around his neck, he attempted to free himself and bit the officer on the arm. The agents severely beat him in retaliation. Bystanders called police, thinking they were witnessing a murder. When local police arrived, they ordered witnesses to delete video footage of the altercation because the videos could reveal the identities of undercover FBI officers and arrested King, despite confirming he was not the suspect they had been looking for.
“Brownback v. King” enters the record as 2021 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Brownback, King and United can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Brownback v. King” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Brownback, King and United provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q124807976. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2021.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Brownback v. King”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Brownback v. King primary sources, Brownback v. King archive and Brownback research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Brownback v. King”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Brownback v. King” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.