Soto v. United States

Under the Berkovitz-Gaubert test, the Court examined whether the discretionary function exception protects federal officials' conduct when they are executing a specific statutory or regulatory mandate rather than exercising policy judgment. The critical question was whether compliance with an explicit legal directive satisfies the first prong of the test—that the conduct be discretionary. The Court resolved this by holding that when government officials are bound by a clear legal mandate that leaves no room for judgment, the ministerial performance of that mandate falls outside the exception because it lacks the discretionary element required by the statute. This boundary allows FTCA plaintiffs to proceed with tort claims against the federal government when officials' harmful conduct amounts to mandatory compliance with a legal directive, rather than discretionary policy decisions.