S. Rep. No. 102-342, at 47 (1992). 15 . 28 U.S.C. § 2679, the Westfall Act, does not provide for substitution for . claims "brought for a violation of the Constitution” or claims brought for violations of statutes which otherwise authorize a cause of action against the named defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2). A Bivens action, discussed in Section III.C infra, would be the cause of action for pursuing such claims against the Federal Defendants individually. 16 . Defendants raised a third argument: Plaintiffs’ apparent failure to administratively exhaust their claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). (Def.’s Mot. at 22-23). Because there is some doubt as to whether that requirement is jurisdictional, see, e.g., United States v. Wong, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1625, 191 L.Ed.2d 533 (2015) (<HOLDING>), and because other bars to jurisdiction exist
holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile holding that provision requiring exhaustion within two years of injury was not jurisdictional and was subject to tolling