A routine police raid turned into a family’s nightmare and now into a legal fight that could reshape how law enforcement is held accountable. On Thursday, June 12, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a family’s lawsuit against the FBI for raiding the wrong home can move forward.
What is the lawsuit based on?
In the early morning hours of Oct. 18, 2017, an FBI SWAT team stormed a suburban home in Atlanta. Agents believed they were entering a suspected gang hideout on Landau Lane. Instead, they raided a home on Denville Trace. In that house was Trina Martin, her 7-year-old son, and her former partner. The officers breached the door, deployed a flash-bang grenade and detained the couple before their error was realized.
The family filed their lawsuit in 2019, launching what would become an uphill legal battle. Suing a federal law enforcement agency is notoriously difficult due to a legal principle known as sovereign immunity, which generally protects the government and its employees from lawsuits. But the Martins brought their case under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, a law that creates a narrow path for individuals to sue the federal government when its employees commit negligent or wrongful acts while on the job.
But the law also lists 13 exceptions, which include situations where you still can’t sue, even if a federal employee did something wrong.
One of those exceptions says you can’t sue for things like assault, battery or false arrest. In that same section, Congress added a special rule: if the person committing those acts was a federal law enforcement or investigative officer, then you can sue for things like assault or false imprisonment.
The government maintains the officers were acting in good faith. They believed they were going to the right house to detain someone dangerous. The FBI argues that they shouldn’t be held responsible for a mistake made in a high-pressure situation. According to court documents, Special Agent Lawrence Guerra used a personal GPS device, which led him to the wrong location. He later discarded the device, which didn’t allow his claims to be verified.
Supreme Court decision pushes lawsuit forward
Lower courts ruled against the Martins. A district court granted summary judgment to the government. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then affirmed that decision, relying on a unique interpretation of the federal tort law not used by any other federal court in the nation. Writing for the court’s unanimous opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch rejected the 11th Circuit’s approach.
SCOTUS struck down the 11th Circuit’s use of a Supremacy Clause defense. The justices said the Federal Tort Claims Act is the controlling federal statute that governs liability and incorporates relevant state law. That means that if a private individual would be liable under local law, the government can also be liable. The Supremacy Clause, the court said, isn’t a license for federal immunity, especially not in civil tort cases where Congress has already outlined available defenses.
Essentially, the justices said federal officers can’t avoid lawsuits just by saying they were following federal policy. The justices stated that the Federal Tort Claims Act doesn’t give them that kind of special immunity.
What happens next?
SCOTUS sent the case back to the 11th Circuit and told them to take another look at whether the government’s actions are protected by the discretionary-function exception, but this time, to make sure they’re using the right legal rules.
A discretionary function basically means the government was making a judgment or choice that the law allows, like deciding how to carry out a law or policy. If what the officers did falls under that kind of protected judgment, the government may not be liable, even if something went wrong.
