Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/256

 546US1

Unit: $$U6

[09-04-08 12:09:02] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 43 (2005)

45

Opinion of the Court

(1993); Aguilar v. United States, 920 F. 2d 1475, 1477 (1990); Doggett v. United States, 875 F. 2d 684, 689 (1989). I In this case, two injured mine workers (and a spouse) have sued the United States claiming that the negligence of fed­ eral mine inspectors helped bring about a serious accident at an Arizona mine. The Federal District Court dismissed the lawsuit in part upon the ground that their allegations were insufﬁcient to show that Arizona law would impose lia­ bility upon a private person in similar circumstances. The Ninth Circuit, in a brief per curiam opinion, reversed this determination. It reasoned from two premises. First, where “ ‘unique governmental functions’ ” are at issue, the Act waives sovereign immunity if “ ‘a state or municipal en­ tity would be [subject to liability] under the law [. . .] where the activity occurred.’ ” 362 F. 3d 1236, 1240 (2004) (citing Hines, supra, at 1448, and quoting Doggett, supra, at 689, and Concrete Tie of San Diego, Inc. v. Liberty Constr., Inc., 107 F. 3d 1368, 1371 (CA9 1997)). Second, federal mine in­ spections being regulatory in nature are such “ ‘unique gov­ ernmental functions,’ ” since “there is no private-sector ana­ logue for mine inspections.” 362 F. 3d, at 1240 (quoting in part Doggett, supra, at 689). The Circuit then held that Ari­ zona law would make “state and municipal entities” liable in the circumstances alleged; hence the FTCA waives the United States’ sovereign immunity. 362 F. 3d, at 1240. II We disagree with both of the Ninth Circuit’s legal premises. A The ﬁrst premise is too broad, for it reads into the Act something that is not there. The Act says that it waives sovereign immunity “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person,” not “the United States, if a state