Seven more sex assault claims filed against Coast Guard Academy
Attorneys representing former U.S. Coast Guard Academy cadets filed seven more sexual assault complaints against the Coast Guard on Thursday, bringing to 29 the number of such complaints they've filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The latest complaints were filed on behalf of women who allege they were sexually assaulted while they were cadets at the academy in New London or, in one case, while attending the Naval Academy Preparatory School, or NAPS, in Newport, R.I.
That cadet had been accepted to the Coast Guard Academy provided she first attend NAPS, according to court documents.
Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight, the national law firm representing the former cadets, provided redacted copies of their complaints. According to the firm, several of the cadets were sexually assaulted in their dorm rooms by classmates who entered with the help of an academy policy that prohibited cadets from locking their doors.
One cadet woke up on several occasions during her tenure at the academy to find a drunk, naked male classmate lying on top of her, sexually assaulting her, the firm said. Another complaint details how a cadet was drugged while attending a party, accepted a ride home from fellow cadets and woke up the next morning having been raped.
Another was repeatedly sexually assaulted in a single night while staying at an academy lieutenant's house with fellow cadets, the firm said.
'Additional Coast Guard Academy sexual assault survivors continue to reach out to me,' Christine Dunn, a Sanford Heisler attorney, said in a news release Thursday. 'I've heard story after story of the sexual violence they endured at the academy and how the academy turned a blind eye. The Coast Guard can no longer be allowed to sweep sexual assault under the rug.'
The academy referred a request for comment to the Coast Guard's media relations office, where a spokesman said the Coast Guard had yet to receive the latest claims. In any event, federal law would prevent it from discussing them, the spokesman said.
The Coast Guard will resolve these claims in accordance with the Federal Tort Claims Act and any other applicable law, he said.
Sanford Heisler filed Thursday's tort claims as well as the 22 previous claims it filed last September and October against the Coast Guard; its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and its former parent agency, the U.S. Department of Transportation. The claims, each of which seeks $10 million in damages, are believed to be the first collective action by sexual violence survivors against a U.S. service academy.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, or FTCA, an individual can bring legal claims against federal agencies for torts, or wrongful acts, committed by their employees. Before filing an FTCA complaint in court, an individual must first file an administrative complaint with the agency at fault. The agency has six months to investigate the claim.
The complaints against the Coast Guard have come in the wake of the service's mishandling of 'Operation Fouled Anchor,' its internal investigation of decades of sexual misconduct at the academy. CNN, the cable news network, revealed the existence of the report in 2023, prompting hearings and ongoing investigations by congressional panels.
Adm. Linda Fagan, the former Coast Guard commandant, was removed from her post in January, soon after President Donald Trump's second inauguration, in part because of her handling of the 'Operation Fouled Anchor' scandal.
b.hallenbeck@theday.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
In NCLA Amicus Win, Supreme Court Revives Innocent Family's Suit over FBI's Wrong-House Raid
Curtrina Martin, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Washington, DC, June 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of Martin v. United States, an Atlanta family's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the government for a wrong-house raid in 2017. FBI agents invaded the home of Trina Martin and her family, shackling her partner on the floor and holding a half-naked Ms. Martin at gunpoint, while she expressed concern for her seven-year-old son's safety elsewhere in the house. One big problem: the FBI SWAT team had knocked down the door of the wrong home, on the wrong street, because the agent in charge had failed to verify its clearly marked address. The Justices remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration. As NCLA's amicus curiae brief urged, the Eleventh Circuit should ultimately rule on remand that the FTCA does not shield the government from liability when federal law enforcement officers raid the wrong house. Ms. Martin and her family filed FTCA claims against the government for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, as well as Fourth Amendment claims against the individual FBI agents. The Eleventh Circuit below upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, concluding that the agents' actions violated no 'clearly established' law. It ruled that the family suffered harm resulting from an agent's 'discretionary act' (i.e., failing to check the house address), warranting total governmental immunity and no path to relief for the Martin family. The Eleventh Circuit also determined that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution could shield the FBI and its agents from FTCA suits. NCLA's amicus brief forcefully argued that the Eleventh Circuit's mode of inquiry—which departed from the analytical process employed by all sister circuits—was inconsistent with the language and intent of the FTCA. Congress amended the FTCA in 1974 expressly to ensure that innocent people subjected to wrong-house raids and similar abuses by federal law enforcement officers would have a cause of action to sue. By expanding the FTCA's discretionary-function exception to encompass wrong-house raids such as this one, the Eleventh Circuit's decision effectively nullified the 1974 law. As Justice Sotomayor underscored in her concurrence (joined by Justice Jackson), 'Courts … should not ignore the existence of the [1974 amendment], or the factual context that inspired its passage, when construing the discretionary-function exception. … [A]ny interpretation should allow for liability in the very cases Congress amended the FTCA to remedy.' Today's Supreme Court ruling does not decide whether the 'discretionary function' exception applies in this case, an issue that the Court ordered the Eleventh Circuit to resolve, but the Justices found that the Supremacy Clause is not a defense the government may invoke in FTCA lawsuits. Justice Gorsuch explained in his opinion for the Court: 'The FTCA is the 'supreme' federal law addressing the United States' liability for torts committed by its agents. It supplies the 'exclusive remedy' for damages claims arising out of federal employees' official conduct.' NCLA released the following statements: 'The Supreme Court rightly held that innocent civilians should not be stripped of any meaningful remedy when they suffer abuse at the hands of federal law enforcement. The Martin family deserves their day in court. On remand, NCLA trusts that the Eleventh Circuit will carefully evaluate what qualifies as 'reasonable' law enforcement—and recognize that a trained FBI agent who fails to check a clearly marked house number before commencing a raid because 'it was dark outside' does not qualify.'— Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'Law enforcement officers should not be able to evade accountability for entering the wrong house and terrorizing an innocent family in the middle of the night when Congress intentionally provided for redress in cases against the federal government in such circumstances. Thankfully, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong to preclude relief in this case and others like it.'— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'All too often, court-created doctrines are used to reduce the government's liability to people whose civil liberties it has violated. Congratulations to our friends at the Institute for Justice for convincing the Supreme Court to clip the wings of such a doctrine in this case—at least where Congress had explicitly created a cause of action to sue.'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Miami Herald
World Cup Boat Party Canceled After DHS, Coast Guard Operation
A floating soccer World Cup party attended by the mayor of Miami-Dade County and FIFA officials was canceled after a federal immigration agent joined a Coast Guard inspection of the boat in Miami's Biscayne Bay on Wednesday night. Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, a Democrat, told Newsweek that the party "had to be abruptly canceled due to a joint operation with Homeland Security and the Coast Guard," adding that the incident was "deeply troubling" and something that "should not have happened." A Coast Guard spokesperson told the Miami Herald that a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent was part of the team that boarded the vessel, the Barefoot Princess, but said it was a routine inspection and "not a targeted immigration thing." However, some attendees reported that crew members on the vessel had been asked for identification and proof of their immigration status. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard and FIFA for comment via email. Miami is among the 16 cities across the U.S, Canada and Mexico that will be hosting the soccer World Cup from June 11 to July 19 next year. Wednesday's incident adds to concerns about how safe fans will feel traveling to the city for the tournament amid President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. Miami-Dade County is investing at least $40 million into the tournament, with leaders hopeful that a surge in tourism will justify the cost. The party was hosted by Telemundo to celebrate the 2026 World Cup being a year away. A spokesperson for Telemundo confirmed to Newsweek that it canceled its "One Year to Go" event after "delays caused by a routine Coast Guard inspection." Levine Cava said she was not made aware of the operation beforehand, and that she was informed by organizers that the event was being canceled. The incident was first reported on social media by Thomas Kennedy, of the Florida Immigrant Coalition. Kennedy told Newsweek that several attendees had told him that staff on the boat had been asked by agents to show identification and proof of their immigration status. Lt. Nicolina Converso, a spokesperson for the Coast Guard's Seventh District, told the Herald that no action was taken from the inspection aside from citations for safety violations against the vessel. Coast Guard spokesperson Chief Petty Officer Nicole Groll told the newspaper that it was standard procedure for the Coast Guard to run background checks on the crew operating a commercial vessel and ask for identification from all crew members. Asked if crew members were asked about their citizenship, Groll said she "can't say which words were said" but added that "this was not a targeted immigration thing." Groll said the inspection "had nothing to do with the event that was happening onboard" and "everything to do with the operations and safety of the people onboard" and "to make sure the business that was this boat was operating legally and safely." Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava said in a statement to Newsweek: "As our county marks one year out from the World Cup 2026 being hosted in Miami-Dade, events have been scheduled to commemorate this milestone including one hosted yesterday by Telemundo that I was invited to attend. Unfortunately, at a time our community should have been celebrating, the event had to be abruptly canceled due to a joint operation with Homeland Security and the Coast Guard. As a guest, I was not made aware of this operation beforehand; we were informed by event organizers that the event was being canceled." Levine Cava added: "Miami-Dade is a globally recognized community that is proud to welcome visitors from around the world. This incident is deeply troubling as it can cause a chilling effect for visitors to continue feeling safe and welcomed in our community, particularly as we prepare for the World Cup next year—an event that is expected to have a historic impact on our local economy. We urge a thorough review by DHS and the Coast Guard of these protocols, as this should not have happened. Ensuring that all community members feel safe and included is crucial to maintaining our county's reputation as a welcoming destination for both residents and visitors." A Telemundo spokesperson told Newsweek: "Due to delays caused by a routine Coast Guard inspection, Telemundo canceled its One Year To Go celebration event in Miami [on Wednesday]. We regret the inconvenience to our guests and appreciate their understanding. We look forward to continuing the road to the FIFA World Cup 26 and bringing this historic tournament to our viewers." Levine Cava has called for the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast to conduct a "thorough review" of their protocols. Miami will host seven World Cup matches next year, starting on June 15, 2026. Related Articles How to Buy Inter Miami vs Al Ahly Tickets: 2025 FIFA Club World Cup Discount Promo CodeTravis Kelce's Subtle Nod to Taylor Swift Spotted in New PhotosAI Will Connect Mercedes-Benz Places Residents to the World5-Star Miami Hotel Sued After Worker Allegedly Entered Woman's Bathroom 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit.
It's been almost eight years since an FBI SWAT team arrived at Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt's home, detonated a flash grenade inside, ripped the door off, and stormed into the couple's bedroom with guns drawn. Agents handcuffed Cliatt at gunpoint, and Martin, who had tried to barricade herself inside of her closet, says she fell on a rack amid the mayhem. But law enforcement would not find who they were looking for there, because that suspect, Joseph Riley, lived in a nearby house on a different street. The issue is still a relevant one for Martin and Cliatt, along with Martin's son, Gabe—who was 7 years old at the time of the raid—as the group has fought for years, unsuccessfully, for the right to sue the government over the break-in. The Supreme Court on Thursday resurrected that lawsuit, unanimously ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had settled on a faulty analysis when it barred Martin and Cliatt from suing in April 2024. But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be." The issue before the Court did not pertain to immunity for any individual law enforcement agent, whom the 11th Circuit shielded from liability in its decision last year. The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the lawsuit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment. There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims—a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso—essentially an exception to the exception—that permits claims to get around that carve-out when the misconduct in question is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids. The 11th Circuit accordingly observed that the proviso would allow Martin and Cliatt's intentional tort claims to survive the exception. The court killed those claims anyway. It cited the Supremacy Clause, which the judges said protected the government from liability if its employees' actions had "some nexus with furthering federal policy and [could] reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Not so, said the Supreme Court. Somewhat surprisingly, that put it in agreement with the government—which, prior to oral arguments, conceded the 11th Circuit's conclusion there was incorrect, and that it did not care to defend it. "We find the government's concession commendable and correct," writes Gorsuch. "The FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit's Supremacy Clause defense." Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing—distinctive under the law from intentional torts—writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said. But the 11th Circuit took its discretionary analysis a step further, ruling that, for acts of wrongdoing that have intentionality, the law enforcement proviso trumps the discretionary exception outright. The justices rejected that. "The law enforcement proviso…overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection," the Court said, "not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions." So where does that leave Martin and Cliatt? "On remand, the 11th Circuit will need to decide whether raiding the wrong house is a 'discretionary function,'" says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented the pair. Jaicomo was hoping the Court would address that very confusion. The plaintiffs "call on us to determine whether and under what circumstances the discretionary-function exception bars suits for wrong-house raids and similar misconduct," writes Gorsuch. "Unless we take up that further question, they worry, the Eleventh Circuit on remand may take too broad a view of the exception and dismiss their claims again. After all, the plaintiffs observe, in the past that court has suggested that the discretionary-function exception bars any claim 'unless a source of federal law "specifically prescribes" a course of conduct' and thus deprives an official of all discretion." The Supreme Court, however, ultimately opted for a narrow approach, though the justices acknowledged "that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said there are no such circumstances when considering the fact pattern presented in Martin and Cliatt's suit. "Like driving, executing a warrant always involves some measure of discretion," she wrote. "Yet it is hard to see how Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect." That would seem like the right conclusion, particularly when considering the genesis of that law enforcement proviso, which Congress enacted to give recourse to victims who suffered at the hands of near-identical misconduct. Those lawmakers clearly did not think the discretionary exception would doom their claims. That the law was meant to protect people like Martin, Cliatt, and Martin's son is why a bipartisan group of lawmakers—including Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Nikema Williams (D–Ga.), and Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.)—had urged the Court to take up their case. Sotomayor's description of Guerra's negligence is also salient and was the subject of one of the more interesting exchanges when the Supreme Court heard the case. Arguing for the Justice Department, Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, said it was too much for Martin and Cliatt to expect "that the officer should have checked the house number on the mailbox." "Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door," Gorsuch responded. Liu countered that such a decision "is filled with policy tradeoffs." "Really?" Gorsuch replied. The post The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit. appeared first on
