The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday in favor of allowing the revival of a lawsuit brought by a family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017.

The case centered on Trina Martin and her family, whose home was raided by FBI agents who went to the wrong address when searching for a suspected gang member in Atlanta. Martin sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages, but two lower courts tossed out her lawsuit over the mistaken raid.

Recommended Stories

• Southern Baptists vote to call on Supreme Court to reverse same-sex marriage ruling
• Pro-gun challenges are hoping to make their way to Second Amendment-friendly Supreme Court
• Supreme Court mistakenly emails order list three days early

The high court’s Thursday decision in Martin v. United States allows Martin to take her case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, after the justices unanimously told the lower court to reconsider the case as well as whether the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception denies Martin’s ability to sue for damages.

“We readily acknowledge that different lower courts have taken different views of the discretionary-function exception. We acknowledge, too, that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

“But those questions lie well beyond the two we granted certiorari to address. And before addressing them, we would benefit from the Eleventh Circuit’s careful reexamination of this case in the first instance,” he added.

The FTCA allows private citizens to sue the government for acting negligently, but it contains several exceptions that shield the government from liability. The broadest one is the discretionary function exception, which typically shields the government from lawsuits when government officials are alleged to have caused harm while exercising their judgment as a part of their job.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, which affirmed the majority opinion but also explained why she believes “there is reason to think the discretionary-function exception may not apply to these claims.”

Patrick Jaicomo, Martin’s lawyer and a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision and said he looked forward to bringing back the FTCA claims in the federal appeals court.

TOP CASES THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE AT THE END OF THIS TERM

“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 Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights,” Jaicomo said in a statement.

During oral arguments in April, the justices appeared open to allowing Martin to revive her case but did not seem ready to issue a sweeping opinion creating more liability for the government in FTCA claims.