U.S. Supreme Court justices grappled Tuesday with an Atlanta family’s attempt to sue the government after a mistaken predawn raid on their home, questioning the scope of immunity available to federal employees.
The high court was urged by Trina Martin, her son, Gabe Watson, and her former partner, Toi Cliatt, to revive their case against the United States and the FBI agent in charge of the 2017 raid on their house in which a six-agent SWAT team busted down their front door, set off a flashbang grenade in their home entryway and pointed guns at them.
The legal fight turns around a change Congress made to the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1974 that allowed people to sue over raids on wrong homes. Although the Atlanta family said that change lets them bring their suit, the federal government said an exception in the statute blocks the family’s claims.
The federal government says the lead agent was just doing his job when he relied on GPS to locate the home his team intended to target, though case records show they ended up at the family’s home about a block away.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the government’s argument that Congress gave the public only limited ability to sue over raids on wrong homes when it changed the FTCA in 1974 to allow such claims. Frederick Liu, arguing for the government, said an existing exception in the statute bars certain claims allowed by the 1974 change.
“That is so ridiculous,” Sotomayor said.
The high court’s decision in the case could come by the end of June and set a precedent for claims against federal officers nationwide. It could settle a split between federal appeals courts in different states.
At issue is whether Congress’ 1974 amendment to the FTCA applies beyond the subsection it is written into, and if it affects an exception in the statute that shields the government from liability tied to employees’ discretionary work duties.
The court is also weighing whether the family’s FTCA claims fail under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the execution of federal law.
Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated Tuesday it could be sensible for the court to rule on the scope of the 1974 change, then send the case back to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for more argument about the discretionary duties exception.
“I don’t doubt that there’s an interesting circuit split that might merit our attention sometime soon, but this is an awkward vehicle to address it,” Gorsuch said.
Sotomayor said the court already decided in a separate case that the discretionary duties exception would not apply to a government official who negligently collided with another car while driving for work, because the official’s decisions while driving were not grounded in regulatory policy. She suggested the decision by the lead agent to raid the home of Martin, Watson and Cliatt by mistake was similarly not tied to work policy.
Credit: TNS
Credit: TNS
“It’s like driving negligently. You got to that house by mistake. You drove negligently and hit someone,” Sotomayor said. “So, I don’t understand how the act of going into a wrong house can be discretionary. He has the right target, the right house, but breaks into the wrong one.”
Liu said the FBI agents who raided the family’s home were considering policy in doing so and made a reasonable mistake. He said the officers weighed public safety, efficiency, operational security and the need for urgency when attempting the raid, intended for the home of a suspected violent gang member who lived a block away.
“Those are precisely the sorts of policy tradeoffs that an officer makes in determining, ‘Well, should I take one more extra precaution to make sure I’m at the right house?’” he said. “Checking the house number at the end of the driveway means exposing the agents to potential lines of fire.”
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sotomayor suggested there could be instances where a federal law enforcement officer is protected by the discretionary duties exception of the FTCA, even if accused of negligence or wrongdoing.
Credit: AP
Credit: AP
“You’re asking us to say that an intentional tort is never discretionary,” Sotomayor said to Patrick Jaicomo, who argued for the plaintiffs. “I’m not quite sure that’s true.”
Jaicomo urged the court to let Congress’ 1974 law change be effective and allow Martin, Watson and Cliatt to pursue their claims.
“The result in this case of the Martin family having no remedy here is that that provision has no effect,” he said. “It’s a complete nullity, if that is the outcome of this case.”
Martin told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution she’s hopeful the Supreme Court will rule in her favor. She said the raid created lasting trauma.
“It’s a major milestone for me and anyone else that has experienced anything like this or possibly will in the future,” Martin said in January when the Supreme Court decided to take the case.
The court typically issues opinions before the end of its term in late June.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
