Supreme Court revives lawsuit over mistaken FBI raid
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived an Atlanta family's lawsuit over a botched FBI raid on their home in 2017 but put off deciding its 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.
'Where does all that leave the case before us?' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked in the court's opinion.
'We can say this much: The plaintiffs' intentional-tort claims survive their encounter with subsection (h) thanks to the law enforcement proviso, as the Eleventh Circuit recognized. But it remains for that court on remand to consider whether subsection (a)'s discretionary-function exception bars either the plaintiffs' negligent or intentional-tort claims,' he wrote.
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 that 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 that 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 that 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.
'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,' he said.
DEVELOPING
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
34 minutes ago
- E&E News
Alaska youth file appeal in bid to block LNG project
Eight young Alaskans are urging the state's Supreme Court to take up their lawsuit against a proposed liquefied natural gas project, arguing it violates their constitutional right to a livable climate. The brief in Sagoonick v. State of Alaska II comes three months after a Superior Court judge dismissed the case, finding that the court lacked the authority and the ability to weigh the competing economic and environmental issues raised by the proposed project, which would ship LNG from the North Slope to Asian markets. In their appeal, the youth argue the ruling undermines the courts' constitutional role. They also say it would make it more difficult to challenge government actions that threaten the livelihoods of young people. Advertisement The youth have asked for a reversal of the ruling and the chance to present evidence supporting their claims.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional
On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a teenage girl and her parents who are attempting to sue the girl's school district for alleged disability discrimination. The decision, which did not rule on the merits of the case, is similar to another recent unanimous ruling finding that courts cannot require different discrimination cases to meet different standards of proof to receive a favorable judgment. The case revolves around a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy that severely impacts her physical and cognitive abilities. The girl, identified as "A. J. T." in court documents, has so many seizures each morning that she is unable to attend school before noon. According to her family's suit, the girl received additional evening instruction in her first school district. However, when the family moved to Minnesota, the girl's new school district refused to provide similar accommodations. Instead, she ended up only having a 4.25-hour school day, as opposed to the regular 6.5-hour school day other students received. When the district suggested cutting back her instructional time further, the family sued, claiming that the Minnesota school district's refusal to provide A. J. T. with enough instructional time violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. However, two lower courts ruled against the family. The 8th Circuit ruled that simply failing to provide A. J. T. a reasonable accommodation wasn't enough to prove illegal discrimination. Rather, because the family was suing a school, they would be subject to a higher standard than plaintiffs suing other institutions. The family was told they had to prove that the school's behavior rose to the level of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment." The Supreme Court disagreed. In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that disability discrimination "claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," adding that "Nothing in the text of Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act suggests that such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor reiterated how nonsensical the 8th Circuit's higher standard for educational disability discrimination claims was, noting that some of the most obvious forms of disability discrimination do not involve bad faith or misjudgment against the disabled. "Stairs may prevent a wheelchair-bound person from accessing a public space; the lack of auxiliary aids may prevent a deaf person from accessing medical treatment at a public hospital; and braille-free ballots may preclude a blind person from voting, all without animus on the part of the city planner, the hospital staff, or the ballot designer," she wrote. "The statutes' plain text thus reaches cases involving a failure to accommodate, even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present." Last week, the Court reached a similar decision, ruling in favor of a straight woman who wanted to sue her employer for sexual orientation–based discrimination but faced a heightened standard of proof because she was a "majority group" plaintiff. In that case, the Court also unanimously ruled that forcing some plaintiffs to clear a higher bar to prove discrimination was unconstitutional and unsupported by federal antidiscrimination law. The post Supreme Court Rules, Again, That Different Standards for Discrimination Plaintiffs Are Unconstitutional appeared first on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
David Hogg's exit from DNC stirs mixed reaction
David Hogg's decision to forgo running again as a vice chair for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has generated mixed emotions among committee members. While some members were relieved, saying the controversy around Hogg's decision as a sitting DNC officer to primary incumbents created a distraction for the party, others voiced surprise or disappointment over the move announced Wednesday. The split may be an amicable one: Some Democrats said they'd welcome Hogg to work with the DNC after his exit. 'I think the overall sense is relief that we can finally move on from what has truly been a distraction from the good work that needs to be done to build up our party infrastructure and take the fight to Republicans each and every day and to make the case to American people that Democrats are able and willing to stand up for American values,' noted Michael Kapp, a DNC committee member from California. Earlier Wednesday, a majority of DNC members voted to redo its vice chair election of Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta The vote stemmed from a challenge by Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who had lost a bid for DNC vice chair. She alleged that the way the election was conducted unfairly advantaged the male vice chair candidates. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee last month determined the entire body would vote on redoing the election. That challenge ran in tandem with a separate firestorm Hogg initiated when he announced he would be getting involved in primarying members of Congress in safe seats who he believed were ineffective. But that decision rankled members, including DNC Chair Ken Martin, who said he believed Hogg shouldn't be doing so while also serving as a DNC officer. Tensions came to a head this week, when leaked audio of a May Zoom DNC officers call, which was reported by Politico over the weekend, showed Martin expressing frustration with Hogg. The fallout from the leaked audio prompted some members to reconsider how they might vote over redoing the vice chair election. After Wednesday's committee vote, Hogg said he would bow out of another DNC election to focus his attention on his work around his group Leaders We Deserve. 'I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters. I need to do this work with Leaders We Deserve, and it is going to remain my number one mission to build the strongest party possible,' he said in his statement. Martin, in a statement, said he respected Hogg's decision and suggested the gun control activist would play a prominent role still within the party. 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map. I appreciate his service as an officer, his hard work, and his dedication to the party,' Martin said. A source close to the DNC suggested the controversy swirling around Hogg didn't impact the party's mechanics but created an unnecessary distraction. 'It didn't sidetrack the work that mattered, but even a second spent talking about it was a second wasted that Democrats should've spent fighting Trump's bill to take health care away from millions of people,' the source said. 'David finally seemed to realize that.' John Verdejo, a DNC committee member from North Carolina, said he didn't expect Hogg's decision to forgo reelection. 'I was surprised and taken aback that he would decide not to run after the votes came in,' Verdejo said; he noted some members were relieved. Howard Chou, a DNC committee member from Colorado, noted he was 'indifferent' about whether he wanted to see Hogg run again. Still, he noted it was a 'loss' for members, saying, 'I'm a little bit disappointed all around because I really wanted to see his energy and leadership contribute to our success.' 'It's unfortunate that he decided to pull out,' said Clay Middleton, a DNC committee member from South Carolina, who suggested 'he would not have been able to face some of the questions again' during the second campaign for the job. Hogg's team declined to comment on that remark. Meanwhile, Kenyatta is on a glide path to being reelected DNC vice chair this week. Still, the Pennsylvania lawmaker has been candid that the process has been frustrating. 'Of course I'm frustrated, but I'm still here because I understand what is at stake,' Kenyatta told The Hill. Kenyatta said he's been busying traveling, to nine states and Germany. And in his role, he said he wants to see the party make races more competitive. 'That is my dream, that there is not a single race that does not have a Democrat on the ballot…,' he said. As for Hogg, Kenyatta has said he didn't want to see the gun control activist leave the DNC and 'be the leader that we deserved.' Hogg has made it clear he'll focus on his group and challenging ineffective members of Congress, noting there's been 'a serious lack of vision from Democratic leaders, too many of them asleep at the wheel' while others have died while in office. Many Democrats, even DNC members, also agree with the notion that the party should be making way for generational change and challenging members who are ineffective, though many have disagreed with the tactic to do so from the perch of the DNC. Hogg's efforts come amid a party struggling to figure out how to counter Trump and land on the same page around messaging heading into 2026 and 2028. Despite the controversy, however, some members say they'd welcome collaborating with Hogg in the future. 'I personally would have open arms to have him contribute, collaborate with us,' Chou said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
