$30 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed by Ashli Babbitt’s Husband Against the U.S. Government

Background: The Shooting and Its Legal Aftermath

On January 6, 2021, Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego, California, was fatally shot inside the U.S. Capitol building during the breach of the building by a large crowd. She was shot by U.S. Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd as she attempted to climb through a broken window beside a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby, where members of Congress and staff were being evacuated.

The U.S. Capitol Police and the Department of Justice both investigated the shooting. The DOJ concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges against the officer, and the USCP determined that the shooting was “lawful and within Department policy,” stating that the officer’s action “potentially saved Members and staff from serious injury and possible death.”

An administrative claim was filed with the U.S. Capitol Police on April 30, 2021, within the two-year window required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. After the claim was denied, the legal team representing Aaron Babbitt and the estate of Ashli Babbitt filed a formal lawsuit on January 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint sought $30 million in damages. The case was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In May 2025, the case was settled for approximately $4.975 million, with roughly one-third of the settlement going to attorneys. The settlement resolved the civil wrongful death claim, but the case raised significant legal questions about the framework governing wrongful death lawsuits against the federal government that apply far beyond this specific incident.

What Is the Federal Tort Claims Act?

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), enacted in 1946, is the primary legal mechanism through which private citizens can sue the United States government for tort claims, including wrongful death. Before the FTCA, the federal government enjoyed near-absolute sovereign immunity from tort lawsuits. Citizens who were harmed by the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees had no legal avenue for compensation unless Congress passed a private bill on their behalf, a cumbersome and unreliable process.

The FTCA changed this by waiving the government’s sovereign immunity for claims based on the “negligent or wrongful act or omission” of a federal employee “acting within the scope of his office or employment.” Under the Act, the United States is liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,” subject to certain exceptions and limitations.

The passage of the FTCA was driven in part by incidents like the 1945 crash of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State Building, which killed 14 people. While the legislation had been under consideration for more than two decades, the Empire State Building disaster gave Congress the political impetus to act. The FTCA was made retroactive to 1945 to allow victims of that crash to seek recovery.

Under the FTCA, a plaintiff must follow a specific procedural pathway. First, an administrative claim must be filed in writing with the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues. The agency then has six months to respond. If the agency denies the claim or fails to respond within six months, the plaintiff may file suit in federal district court. The plaintiff then has six months from the date of the agency’s denial to file the lawsuit. These deadlines are strictly enforced, and failure to meet them will bar the claim entirely.

The FTCA applies the substantive law of the state where the incident occurred. This means that the elements of a wrongful death claim under the FTCA are determined by state law. In the Babbitt case, although the lawsuit was initially filed in California, the incident occurred in Washington, D.C., so D.C. wrongful death law would govern the substantive legal questions. D.C. Code Section 16-2701 provides that the personal representative of a deceased person may bring a wrongful death action when the death is caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default.

Sovereign Immunity: The Government’s Shield

Sovereign immunity is a foundational principle of American law, inherited from the English common law maxim “rex non potest peccare,” meaning “the king can do no wrong.” Under this doctrine, the government cannot be sued without its consent. Both the federal government and state governments enjoy sovereign immunity, although the scope and application of the doctrine vary.

At the federal level, sovereign immunity means that the United States cannot be sued in any court unless Congress has enacted a statute waiving that immunity for the type of claim at issue. The FTCA is the primary waiver for tort claims, but it is not a blanket waiver. The Act contains numerous exceptions that preserve the government’s immunity for certain categories of claims.

The most significant exception in the context of wrongful death claims is the discretionary function exception. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2680(a), the FTCA does not apply to “any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”

In practice, the discretionary function exception shields the government from liability when a federal employee’s actions involve an element of judgment or choice, and that judgment is of the kind that the exception was designed to protect, namely decisions grounded in considerations of public policy. The U.S. Supreme Court established this two-part test in Berkovitz v. United States (1988) and refined it in United States v. Gaubert (1991).

The discretionary function exception is a significant barrier in cases involving law enforcement use of force. The government may argue that the decision to use deadly force in a particular situation involved the type of judgment and policy considerations that the exception was designed to protect. However, courts have also recognized that the exception does not shield conduct that violates a specific mandatory directive or standard operating procedure.

The Intentional Tort Exception and the Law Enforcement Proviso

The FTCA originally excluded all intentional torts from its waiver of sovereign immunity. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2680(h), the government was shielded from claims arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.

This created a significant gap in accountability for victims of intentional misconduct by federal employees. In response, Congress amended the FTCA in 1974 to add what is known as the “law enforcement proviso.” This amendment provides that the intentional tort exception does not apply to claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution arising from the acts or omissions of “investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government.”

The law enforcement proviso was a critical development for wrongful death cases arising from law enforcement use of deadly force. Without it, families of individuals killed by federal officers would have no remedy under the FTCA because a shooting inherently involves the intentional torts of assault and battery. With the proviso, these claims can proceed, provided they meet the other requirements of the Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and expanded the reach of the law enforcement proviso in Millbrook v. United States (2013), holding that the proviso applies to the acts of law enforcement officers regardless of whether those acts occurred during the course of a search, seizure, or arrest, or during other law enforcement activities. This decision broadened the category of cases in which the government can be held liable for the intentional torts of its law enforcement personnel.

In the Babbitt case, the law enforcement proviso was central to the plaintiff’s ability to bring the claim. The shooting was carried out by a U.S. Capitol Police officer acting in an official capacity. Without the 1974 amendment creating the law enforcement proviso, the intentional tort exception would have barred the claim entirely.

Use of Deadly Force: The Legal Standard

Wrongful death claims arising from law enforcement shootings turn on whether the officer’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The controlling legal standard was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989), which held that claims of excessive force by law enforcement officers must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard.

Under Graham v. Connor, the reasonableness of a particular use of force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight. The Court identified several factors relevant to this analysis, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

The Graham standard recognizes that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations. This standard gives significant weight to the officer’s perspective and the circumstances as they appeared at the time, which can make it challenging for plaintiffs to establish that a use of force was unreasonable.

In cases involving shootings during large-scale security incidents, the analysis becomes even more complex. The officer may argue that the threat assessment was informed not just by the actions of the individual who was shot, but by the broader security situation, including the size and behavior of the crowd, reports of weapons, and the need to protect specific individuals such as members of Congress or other officials.

The defense in the Babbitt case relied heavily on these principles. The officer stated publicly that he fired as a “last resort” after the mob ignored repeated orders to get back, and that he was protecting members of Congress and staff who were being evacuated. The USCP’s finding that the shooting was lawful and within department policy supported this position. The plaintiff’s burden was to establish that, even considering the totality of the circumstances, the use of deadly force against Babbitt was objectively unreasonable.

Procedural Requirements for FTCA Wrongful Death Claims

Filing a wrongful death claim against the federal government under the FTCA requires strict adherence to procedural requirements that do not apply in ordinary tort cases. The administrative claim requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite, meaning that a court cannot hear the case at all if the plaintiff did not first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency and either receive a denial or wait for the six-month period to expire.

The administrative claim must be presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency and must include a specific sum certain, meaning the plaintiff must state a dollar amount for the damages sought. This requirement is important because it sets the ceiling for what the plaintiff can later recover in court. A plaintiff cannot seek more in the lawsuit than was claimed in the administrative filing, unless the facts or injuries change after the administrative claim was filed.

In the Babbitt case, the administrative claim was filed with the U.S. Capitol Police on April 30, 2021, approximately 114 days after the shooting. This was well within the two-year statute of limitations. The subsequent lawsuit was filed on January 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The case was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which was the more appropriate venue given that the incident occurred in Washington, D.C.

California vs. Federal Wrongful Death Claims: Key Differences

Because the FTCA applies the law of the state where the incident occurred, understanding the differences between state wrongful death statutes is important for anyone evaluating a potential claim. The Babbitt case was governed by D.C. law because the shooting occurred in Washington, D.C. However, for California residents and attorneys, it is useful to understand how a similar claim would be analyzed under California law, and how California’s own tort claims act governs suits against state and local government entities.

In California, wrongful death claims are governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 377.60 through 377.62. These statutes allow certain family members, including a surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and in some cases other dependents, to bring a claim for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. Recoverable damages include the loss of the decedent’s financial contributions, the loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support, and the reasonable value of household services that the decedent would have provided.

Claims against California state and local government entities are governed by the California Tort Claims Act (California Government Code Sections 810 through 996.6). Similar to the FTCA, the California Tort Claims Act requires plaintiffs to file an administrative claim with the responsible government entity before filing a lawsuit. The deadline for filing the administrative claim is generally six months from the date of the incident, which is significantly shorter than the FTCA’s two-year deadline. This shorter timeline catches many potential claimants off guard, and missing it can be fatal to the case.

California law also addresses the use of deadly force by law enforcement through Assembly Bill 392, which was signed into law in 2019. This statute amended California Penal Code Section 196 to restrict the circumstances under which law enforcement officers may use deadly force to situations where the officer “reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary” to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, or to apprehend a fleeing felon who the officer reasonably believes will cause death or serious bodily injury if not immediately apprehended.

The Broader Legal Significance of the Case

Lessons for Wrongful Death Claims Against Government Entities

Whether a wrongful death arises from a law enforcement shooting, a dangerous road condition maintained by a government agency, a defective government-owned vehicle, or any other act or omission by a government employee, the legal principles illustrated by the Babbitt case apply broadly. Several key lessons emerge.

First, timing is critical. The FTCA imposes a two-year deadline for administrative claims against federal agencies, while the California Tort Claims Act imposes a six-month deadline for claims against state and local government entities. These deadlines are strictly enforced and are not subject to the same tolling rules that may apply in ordinary tort cases. Families who believe they may have a wrongful death claim against any level of government should seek legal counsel as soon as possible to ensure these deadlines are met.

Second, the administrative claim requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite, not merely a procedural formality. A lawsuit filed without a proper prior administrative claim will be dismissed, regardless of the merits of the underlying case. The administrative claim must be in writing, must be filed with the correct agency, and must include a sum certain for the damages sought.

Third, the substantive legal standards for government liability claims can differ significantly from those in ordinary tort cases. The discretionary function exception, the intentional tort exception and its law enforcement proviso, the prohibition on punitive damages, and the absence of jury trials all create a legal landscape that is materially different from a standard wrongful death case against a private party.

Fourth, the choice of counsel matters. Government liability cases require attorneys who are familiar with the specific statutes, procedures, and legal standards that govern these claims. An attorney experienced in ordinary personal injury litigation may not have the specialized knowledge needed to navigate the FTCA or the California Tort Claims Act effectively.

Finally, settlements in government liability cases are common, and they often occur for amounts well below the initial demand. The Babbitt case settled for approximately $4.975 million against an initial demand of $30 million. This is not unusual in FTCA cases, where the prohibition on punitive damages and the absence of a jury limit the plaintiff’s leverage. Nevertheless, a well-prepared case with strong facts can still result in meaningful compensation for the family of a wrongful death victim.

How Wrongful Death Claims Work in California

For California residents, understanding the state’s wrongful death framework is essential because the majority of wrongful death claims, whether against private parties or government entities, will be governed by California law. The key elements of a California wrongful death claim include establishing that the decedent’s death was caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the defendant; that the plaintiff is a person entitled to bring the claim under the statute; and that the plaintiff has suffered compensable damages as a result of the death.

California law limits the categories of persons who may bring a wrongful death claim. The primary plaintiffs are the decedent’s surviving spouse or domestic partner, children, and grandchildren. If none of these exist, the right to bring the claim passes to anyone who would be entitled to the decedent’s property by intestate succession, which may include parents, siblings, or other relatives. Putative spouses, children of putative spouses, stepchildren, and parents may also qualify under certain circumstances.

Damages in California wrongful death cases are compensatory only. Punitive damages are not available. The types of compensatory damages that may be recovered include the financial contributions the decedent would have made to the family, the loss of the decedent’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, and moral support, the value of household services the decedent would have provided, and funeral and burial expenses. The damages are forward-looking, meaning they are measured by what the plaintiffs lost from the date of death going forward, not by what happened before the death.

The statute of limitations for a California wrongful death claim is two years from the date of death. For claims against government entities, the six-month administrative claim deadline under the California Tort Claims Act applies. These deadlines are separate from each other, and both must be satisfied when a government entity is involved.