|Full Name||Gary Thacker, et ux. v. Tennessee Valley Authority|
|Short Name||Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority|
|Petitioner||Gary Thacker, et ux.|
|Respondent||Tennessee Valley Authority|
|Date Argued (Reargued)||Jan. 14, 2019|
|Date Decided||April 29, 2019|
1. This Court tests the immunity of governmental "sue and be sued" entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority) under Fed. Housing Amin. v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940). The Court has declined to borrow rules from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to narrow that immunity. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994). Did the Eleventh Circuit err by using an FTCA- derived "discretionary-function exception," rather than Burr, to immunize the TVA from the plaintiffs' claims? 2. Did the Eleventh Circuit, in any case, correctly apply the discretionary-function test? Did that court correctly hold that safely raising a downed power line from the Tennessee River constitutes the sort of "policy"-laden discretionary work that this exception was designed to immunize from suit? GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.