Once again, President Biden’s two-year-old German Shepherd, Commander, has reportedly bitten someone—this time a Secret Service Uniformed Division officer stationed at the White House. This latest incident marks Commander’s 11th biting occurrence just this year.
U.S. law holds dog owners accountable for bites, and in some states, including California, repeated offenders may face mandatory euthanasia. So, could President Biden, as Commander’s owner, face a lawsuit? And should Commander be euthanized?
I’ll admit, I’ve handled a few dog bite cases in my time—though dog bite law often carries a reputation for attracting ambulance chasers (due to the potential for profitable settlements). That said, here’s my perspective on Commander:
If Joe and Jill Biden were ordinary citizens and their dog bit someone, the victim could file a lawsuit. In that case, their homeowners’ insurance policy would typically assign an adjuster, hire a lawyer to defend them, and most likely settle the case before it even reaches trial.
But Joe and Jill Biden are not ordinary citizens—they are the President and First Lady. The President is the head of the executive branch of the federal government, and when a federal employee is sued for something related to their official duties, they are typically granted immunity under the Westfall Act. This law protects federal employees from personal liability, but to claim immunity, the employee must demonstrate that they are a government official covered by the Westfall Act and that the lawsuit arises from conduct within the scope of their employment.
Regarding the first requirement, federal courts have recently ruled that a president qualifies as a federal employee under the Westfall Act, specifically in the case where Donald Trump sought to use the Act to avoid a defamation lawsuit filed by E. Jean Carroll. The second requirement, however, is more complicated. If owning a dog falls within the “outer perimeter of the president’s official responsibilities,” then the President could be completely immune from a lawsuit.
For most federal employees, owning a dog has little to do with their job duties. However, the role of a presidential pet might be different. According to the White House, presidential dogs have historically helped “humanize” the president’s public image. In some cases, they have even served as tools of international diplomacy. For example, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev gifted First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy a dog named Pushinka. At times, presidential dogs have performed ceremonial duties—President Warren Harding’s dog Laddie once “greeted official delegations and hosted the 1923 White House Easter Egg Roll while the Hardings were away.”
So, the question of whether President Biden can be sued for Commander’s biting incidents ultimately hinges on what role Commander serves in the President’s life—whether owning him falls within the scope of his official duties.
If owning a dog is deemed to fall within the outer boundaries of official presidential duties, the Westfall Act would substitute the United States as the sole defendant in any lawsuit, replacing President Biden. The case would then be governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives the government’s sovereign immunity and allows lawsuits against the U.S. government. However, the FTCA also imposes significant hurdles for those seeking to sue.
There’s precedent for such cases. In 2020, a tourist was bitten by a military dog named Rosso at a Secret Service security checkpoint near President Trump’s Trump Tower. Rosso had been sniffing a truck for explosives when the incident occurred. The tourist filed a lawsuit, but she lost because the FTCA barred her case from moving forward.
The FTCA makes a big difference. While dog bite cases are generally straightforward to win, especially in jurisdictions where the dog owner is automatically held liable (such as in the District of Columbia), lawsuits against the United States are much harder to win due to the FTCA’s strict limitations.
In one notable D.C. case, a parent sued the TSA after alleging that a dog, trained by the agency, bit her child. The court ruled that training the dog was considered a “discretionary function,” granting the TSA immunity under the FTCA.
In D.C., when a civilian dog bites someone, the owner is automatically liable, even if the dog has never bitten anyone before. However, in Commander’s case—reportedly on his 11th bite—the President and the United States are likely immune from civil liability due to the protections afforded by the Westfall Act and FTCA.
Despite the immunity enjoyed by the Bidens and the U.S. government, there may still be justice available for Commander’s victims, albeit in a more “eye for an eye” fashion. Under D.C. law, the Mayor is responsible for investigating whether a dog is dangerous. The law explicitly authorizes the Mayor to “humanely destroy a dog if… the dog [poses] a threat to public safety if it is returned to its owner.”
When it comes to Commander, Mayor Muriel Bowser could play the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Will Commander’s reported 11 bites be enough to trigger an investigation? Will Bowser decide that Commander poses a threat to public safety and order his “humane destruction”? And if so, could that lead to a standoff between D.C. police and Commander’s Secret Service detail?
It’s a potential constitutional crisis waiting to unfold.
Post a Comment