The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Martin v. United States, a case that may reshape the legal landscape for individuals seeking redress for wrongful government actions.[i] The case centers on Curtrina Martin (“Martin”), her son Gabe, and her partner Hilliard Cliatt (“Cliatt”), an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team in 2017.[ii] Now, after years of legal battles, the Court will determine whether their lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) should be allowed to proceed.
In the early morning hours, Martin, Gabe, and Cliatt were abruptly awakened by the detonation of a flashbang grenade inside their home.[iii] Fearing an intrusion, Cliatt reached for his legally owned shotgun, only to be confronted by FBI agents who threw him to the ground and interrogated both him and Martin.[iv] Their seven-year-old son was separated from his mother as agents stormed into his bedroom with guns drawn.[v] The FBI quickly realized their mistake—the no-knock warrant was for a house on a different street with a different address number—but the damage was already done.[vi] Following the raid, the FBI apologized and provided a business card, suggesting the government would handle the property damage.[vii] However, when Martin and Cliatt sought compensation, they found themselves met with resistance.[viii] Left with no alternative, they filed a lawsuit under the FTCA, which allows individuals to sue the federal government for wrongful acts committed by its employees under circumstances where a private individual could be held liable.[ix] Yet, their claims were dismissed by the lower courts, which cited the “discretionary function” exception, shielding the government from liability when officials exercise discretion in advancing federal policy.[x]
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that their lawsuit was barred by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[xi] This argument is unprecedented, as no other circuit has interpreted the Supremacy Clause to prevent claims under the FTCA.[xii] The Supreme Court’s decision to review the case is significant, as it may set a precedent for how wrongfully harmed individuals can seek accountability from the government.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the discretionary function exception should apply to cases of blatant government error. While the government argues that law enforcement officers must have broad discretion in carrying out their duties, Martin and Cliatt contend that there is no discretion in raiding the wrong home.[xiii] For much of U.S. history, people could not sue the federal government for the actions of its employees due to sovereign immunity. That changed in the 1940s when Congress passed the FTCA, which allowed people to sue for certain actions by federal employees that caused personal injury or property damage. Congress even amended the FTCA decades ago to ensure that victims of wrongful police raids could seek legal remedies, yet courts have interpreted the law in ways that continue to limit such claims.[xiv] The Supreme Court’s ruling could clarify the extent of these protections and determine whether lower courts have wrongly expanded government immunity.
The case has broader implications beyond this single instance of mistaken identity. It highlights concerns over aggressive policing tactics, particularly no-knock raids, which have come under increasing scrutiny. Civil rights advocates argue that without a means to hold law enforcement accountable, wrongful raids and similar incidents will continue unchecked.[xv] A ruling in favor of Martin and Cliatt would reinforce that when government agencies make grave errors, they must be responsible for the consequences. The Institute for Justice (“IJ”), which represents the family[xvi], emphasizes that the FTCA was designed to provide a remedy for those harmed by government misconduct. IJ Senior Attorney Patrick Jaicomo stated, “Congress amended a federal statute to ensure that victims of wrongful federal police raids have a remedy in American courts. It’s time for the Supreme Court to make it clear that the FTCA means what it says, and courts have no business carving exceptions into the statute Congress passed.”[xvii] A bipartisan group of lawmakers has also filed an amicus brief in support of the petition, arguing that the lower courts have improperly expanded government immunity in cases where it was never intended.[xviii]
This case arrives at the Supreme Court at a time when legal debates over police accountability are particularly relevant. If the Court rules in favor of Martin and Cliatt, it could open new pathways for individuals seeking justice against wrongful government actions. Conversely, a decision reinforcing the lower court’s ruling could further insulate federal agencies from legal responsibility, making it more difficult for victims of government misconduct to obtain relief. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Martin v. United States will not only affect the Martin family but could also reshape the application of the FTCA and the ability of individuals to hold federal law enforcement accountable.
[i] See Mike Vilensky, High Court Takes Up Appeal on FBI Immunity in Wrong-House Raid, Bloomberg L. (Jan. 27, 2025, 3:40PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/high-court-takes-up-appeal-on-fbi-immunity-in-wrong-house-raid-30.
[ii] See Andrew Wimer, Supreme Court Will Hear Case from Victims of FBI Wrong-house Raid, Inst. for Just. (Jan. 27, 2025), https://ij.org/press-release/supreme-court-will-hear-case-from-victims-of-fbi-wrong-house-raid/.
[iii] See Rosie Manins, Atlanta Family in Mistaken FBI Raid Gets Case Before U.S. Supreme Court, The Atlanta J.-Const. (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/atlanta-family-in-mistaken-fbi-raid-gets-case-before-us-supreme-court/ENNZUPL3HVFYJKN5FJAK6UKSPQ/.
[iv] See Wimer, supra note ii.
[v] See id.
[vi] See Wimer, supra note ii.
[vii]See id.
[viii] See id.
[ix] See Amy Howe, Justices Take Up Case on Right to Sue Over Mistaken SWAT Raid, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 27, 2025, 6:09 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/justices-take-up-case-on-right-to-sue-over-mistaken-swat-raid/.
[x] See id.
[xi] See id.
[xii] See Wimer, supra note ii.
[xiii] See id.
[xiv] See id.
[xv] See id.
[xvi] See Zach Schonfeld, Supreme Court Will Review FBI’s Immunity in Lawsuit Over Mistaken House Raid, The Hill (Jan. 27, 2025, 4:40 PM), https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5109292-supreme-court-set-review-home-raids/.
[xvii] See Wimer, supra note ii.
[xviii] See id.
