The Supreme Court on Thursday revived an Atlanta family’s lawsuit over a botched FBI raid on its home in 2017 but put off deciding the case’s ultimate fate.
In a unanimous decision, the justices instead sent the case back to a lower court to take another crack at deciding whether the lawsuit can move forward.
Federal agents smashed through Trina Martin’s front door in 2017 while executing a search warrant at the wrong address, believing it was the home of an alleged violent gang member. Martin and her boyfriend at the time were startled out of bed with a flash-bang grenade and guns raised, as her 7-year-old son screamed from another room.
She sued the government in 2019, accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives the government’s sovereign immunity and lets people injured by certain actions of federal officers bring some claims for damages against it under state law.
But a federal judge in Atlanta dismissed the suit, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The justices now say the lower courts erred, ordering the appeals court to reexamine the case.
The justices clarified two principles and said the 11th Circuit Court should consider on remand whether the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception bars two of Martin’s claims.
“It is work enough for the day to answer the questions we took this case to resolve, clear away the two faulty assumptions on which that court has relied in the past and redirect it to the proper inquiry,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion.
Patrick Jaicomo, Martin’s lawyer, argued before the justices that “innocent victims” of the government’s mistakes must have an available legal remedy. The FTCA was amended in 1974 after a pair of wrong-house raids made headlines, which he suggested makes clear that Martin’s lawsuit should be allowed to proceed.
Exceptions to the law make it more complicated.
Frederick Liu, who argued for the government, said an exception to the FTCA preventing plaintiffs from suing the government for damages that arise out of an officer’s discretionary acts applies to the case. He also suggested entering the wrong home was a “reasonable mistake” and an example of the “policy trade-offs” officers make when placed in risky situations.
In the court’s opinion, Gorsuch acknowledged lower courts have taken different views on the discretionary-function exception and that “important questions” must be weighed regarding under which circumstances they apply.
“But those questions lie well beyond the two we granted certiorari to address,” Gorsuch wrote. “And before addressing them, we would benefit from the Eleventh Circuit’s careful reexamination of this case in the first instance.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, meant to “underscore” that the exception regarding officer discretion may not apply here. She pointed to the historical context in which the exception was passed to suggest that the exception does not apply “reflexively.”
“Whatever else is true of that exception, any interpretation should allow for liability in the very cases Congress amended the FTCA to remedy,” Sotomayor wrote.
In a statement following the decision, Jaicomo said the court was right to revive the Martin family’s case.
“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,” he said. “We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights.”
Updated at 11:32 a.m. EDT