Stanley Vs United States government?

Question

This was a case that happened long ago. Stanley was a U.S. military sergeant who volunteered to particapte in a program which would test the effiectiveness of clothing against chemical warfare. Unknown to the thousands of military men that all volunteered they were given huge doses of LSD because the army wanted to see the results of what LSD would do to the human body. Years afterwards he suffered massive memory loss, he often had hallucinations, and he sometimes would wake in the middle of the night and beat his wife and kids and forget about what he did in the morning. He became divorced later on, and stanley left the army in 1969 after over a decade of service. 6 years later the army contacted him to ask him about the long-term effects of what the LSD had done to him. It was the first time he knew he was given LSD. He sued the army for destorying his life, however no court would hear the case, it went all the way to the supreme court and i think they rejected, anyone know results?

Answer 1

reversed in part and remanded in part.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=669

Answer 2

"Between 1953 and 1966, the Central Intelligence Agency financed a wide-ranging project, code-named MKULTRA, concerned with 'the research and development of chemical, biological, and radiological materials capable of employment in clandestine operations to control human behavior.' The program consisted of some 149 subprojects which the Agency contracted out to various universities, research foundations, and similar institutions. At least 80 institutions and 185 private researchers participated. Because the Agency funded MKULTRA indirectly, many of the participating individuals were unaware that they were dealing with the Agency". Id. 161-162.

In February 1958, James B. Stanley, a master sergeant in the Army stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, volunteered to participate in a program ostensibly designed to test the effectiveness of protective clothing and equipment as defenses against chemical warfare. He was released from his then-current duties and went to the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Four times that month, Stanley was secretly administered doses of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), pursuant to an Army plan to study the effects of the drug on human subjects. As a result of the LSD exposure, Stanley claimed to have suffered from hallucinations and periods of incoherence and memory loss, was impaired in his military performance, and would on occasion "awake from sleep at night and, without reason, violently beat his wife and children, later being unable to recall the entire incident." App.5. He was discharged from the Army in 1969. One year later, his marriage dissolved because of the personality changes wrought by the LSD. US v Stanley, page 691.

Twenty-seven years later, on December 10, 1975, the Army sent Stanley a letter soliciting his cooperation in a study of the long-term effects of LSD on "volunteers who participated" in the 1958 tests. This was the Government's first notification to Stanley that he had been given LSD during his time in Maryland. After an administrative claim for compensation was denied by the Army, Stanley filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. ß 2671 et seq., alleging negligence in the administration, supervision, and subsequent monitoring of the drug testing program.

Stanley named Joseph R. Bertino, MD; Board of Regents of the University of Maryland; H.D. Collier; Albert Dreiscach; Bernard G. Elfert; Sidney Gottlieb, M.D.; Richard Helms; Gerald Klee, M.D.; Van Sim, M.D.; Walter Weintraub, M.D.; and unknown individual federal and state agents and officers. US vs Stanley 483 US 674, footnote 2.

Since Stanley was a serviceman at the time of the experiments, the Court held that his claim was barred under a legal doctrine known as the Feres doctrine. Feres insulates the government from liability for injuries to servicemen resulting from activity "incident to service". Worse yet, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court also held that Stanley's Bivens claims for constitutional violations against the individual federal officials involved in the secret project were also barred by governmental immunity.

Justice Brennan and Marshall dissented in the decision to deny Stanley his Bivens claim referring to the Nuremberg code.

Answer 3

No. Why do you ask? Its very likely that any decision made back around 1969 could have very easily been overruled by this point.