Suit over mistaken raid by FBI SWAT team given another chance by Supreme Court
A federal appeals court made “two faulty assumptions” when it tossed an Atlanta family’s lawsuit over a mistaken raid of their home by an FBI SWAT team, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
But another issue in the case must still be resolved by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta, said Justice Neil Gorsuch in his June 12 opinion for the high court.
The October 2017 raid began when a six-member FBI SWAT team breached the family’s front door and exploded a flashbang grenade in the living room. Officers stormed a bedroom with guns drawn and threw one family member to the ground as he reached for his shotgun, according to the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, which represents the family. FBI agents discovered their mistake when they saw some mail with the home’s address.
The family sued for personal injuries and property damage under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives U.S. sovereign immunity and allows damages for certain torts of federal employees within the scope of their employment. Thirteen exceptions to the law “claw back the government’s immunity in certain circumstances,” Gorsuch explained.
Two of those clawback exceptions are the intentional tort exception, which bars claims for 11 torts, and the discretionary function exception, which bars claims based on a federal employee’s performance of function that involves discretion.
The 11th Circuit erred by misinterpreting a law enforcement proviso in a way that favored the family, Gorsuch said. The appeals court wrongly ruled that the proviso, which overrides the ban on suits for 11 intentional torts, also overrode a ban on suits based on discretionary functions.
Then the 11th Circuit erred in a way that favored the government by allowing it to assert an affirmative defense under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, Gorsuch said. The defense protects the government, the 11th Circuit said, when a law enforcement officer’s actions have “some nexus with furthering federal policy” and complied with “the full range of federal law.”
On remand, the 11th Circuit must decide whether the discretionary function exception bars claims in the suit based on negligence and intentional torts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurrence joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor indicated that she thought that the claims may be able to survive on remand.
“I write separately to underscore that there is reason to think the discretionary function exception may not apply to these claims,” Sotomayor said.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Curtrina Martin; her son (represented by Martin); and Martin’s partner, Hilliard Toi Cliatt.
The case is Martin v. United States.
The Institute for Justice labeled the decision a “victory” in a June 12 press release.
“The Supreme Court was right to let the Martin family’s case move forward for the FBI’s botched raid of their home,” said Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, in a statement. “The court’s decision today acknowledged how far the circuit courts have strayed from the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is to ensure remedies to the victims of federal harms—intentional and negligent alike. We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the 11th Circuit.”
Hat tip to SCOTUSblog, which had early coverage of the case.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
