(The Center Square) — The federal government is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit against the U.S. Army filed by victims of the 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine by a reservist with a history of mental illness.
The lawsuit, filed in September, alleges that the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and the Keller Army Community Hospital ignored warning signs that Army Reserve Sgt. Robert Card posed a threat to the community before he killed 18 people at a bowling alley and a bar in Lewiston, setting off a two-day manhunt that ended when he committed suicide.
But the U.S. Department of Justice is asking a federal judge to dismiss the legal challenge, saying the plaintiffs lack standing under the Federal Tort Claims Act to file the lawsuit and arguing that Card — not the Army — was “solely responsible” for the shooting.
“This mass shooting is an unspeakable tragedy,” the DOJ lawyers wrote in the 72-page motion to dismiss. “But for many reasons, plaintiffs have no viable claims against the United States under the FTCA.”
The legal challenge followed reports suggesting the Army missed opportunities to potentially stop the rampage and a ruling by a federal judge two weeks ago that paved the way for family members and survivors of the Lewiston shooting to access Card’s military records.
Plaintiffs allege that the Army “broke its promises, failed to act reasonably, violated its own policies and procedures and disregarded directives and orders” by failing to act on Card’s mental health issues.
The Lewiston shooting was the worst in Maine’s history and drew national attention to the largely rural state, which has the country’s lowest crime rate but a long record of resisting firearm restrictions.
Card’s family members had reportedly alerted the Army and local authorities that he was having mental health issues and was heavily armed. He had been placed in a psychiatric unit about three weeks before the shooting, family members said.
An independent commission created by Gov. Janet Mills concluded there were enough warning signs for local authorities to seize the gunman’s weapons under the state’s “yellow flag” law – meaning officers can take firearms belonging to anyone believed to be a threat to themselves or others – before the Oct. 25 rampage.
An Army report released in June outlines a series of failures and “multiple errors” by Card’s unit leading up to the shooting. Three officers in Card’s reservist unit were disciplined for failing to follow proper procedures, according to the Army’s report.
The Army report also faulted local law enforcement for not doing enough, saying investigators could have conducted “a more extensive welfare check” before the attack and confiscated his firearms.
But the DOJ noted in its motion to dismiss the case that Card was not an active duty service member at the time of the shooting, and warned the judge that making the army liable for his actions “could give rise to unending liability for the United States in relation to the conduct of current or former service members.”
“Plaintiffs’ argument would mean that the Army has a legal duty to anyone who may be harmed by a current or former service member who developed a mental illness as a result of their service,” the DOJ’s lawyers wrote.
