Supreme Court revives lawsuit from Atlanta family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI
Martin and Cliatt filed a lawsuit against the federal government accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations. But lower courts tossed out the case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found they couldn't sue over what amounted to an honest mistake.
Advertisement
The appeals court also found the lawsuit was barred under a provision of the Constitution known as the Supremacy Clause, which says federal laws take precedence over state laws.
The family's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress clearly allowed for lawsuits like theirs after a pair of similar headline-making raids on wrong houses in 1974. The 11th Circuit was also ruling differently than other courts around the country, they said.
Public interest groups from across the political spectrum urged the justices to overturn the ruling, saying its reasoning would severely narrow the legal path for people to sue the federal government in law-enforcement accountability cases.
Advertisement
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
21 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
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Sounds Like a Democrat From the 1980s
One of the most entertaining recent social media love fests involved President Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). Warren wrote that she and the president agree about scrapping the debt ceiling—a congressional limit on federal borrowing. Its goal is to force the government to live within its means. Congress often relaxes the limit, but "Katy, bar the door" if extreme progressives such as Warren get their way. Trump was "very pleased" to announce his agreement with her that such limits would lead to "economic catastrophe." He thinks it's wrong to put such power in "the hands of political people," as if the root spending isn't done by politicians. Anyhow, it was the latest example of the Horseshoe Theory, whereby the two political extremes don't occupy distant points along a line, but are as close together as the two ends of a horseshow. There's indeed an odd similarity between right-populism and left-progressivism. Justin Amash, the former Republican congressman from Michigan, is one of the few politicians who lives up to his own billing ("a principled, consistent constitutional conservative dedicated to individual liberty, economic freedom and the Rule of Law"). He threw shade on the Trump/Warren kumbaya session: "Donald Trump is, at his core, a big-government politician with misguided views on economics and the federal budget. He's a more socially conservative Elizabeth Warren, which is to say he's a 1980s Democrat." Bingo. Having grown up as a Democrat in Pennsylvania in the 1970s—the only Republicans I knew were of the Rockefeller variety and wore bowties—I was greatly influenced by the rise of Reagan and eagerly switched parties after the 1980 election. I remember the era's politics clearly, as I was studying political science at George Washington University. (I couldn't get back to my dorm room after the Reagan assassination attempt, as the president was convalescing at GWU hospital and the streets were closed.) So when I hear my Republican friends compare Trump to the Reagan era, I half-heartedly agree. Yes, we're seeing the revival of that decade's debates—except Trump is an almost exactly replica of the Democratic politicians of the time, but with a socially conservative twist. It's as if Missouri Democrat Dick Gephardt, the congressman and later a Democratic presidential candidate, had a love child (politically speaking, of course) with Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo. I'm relieved that I'm not the only one to have noticed. In a February column in The Dispatch, Kevin D. Williamson quoted from the 1980 Democratic platform: "We will not allow our workers and industries to be displaced by unfair import competition." He added: "The Democrat Trump sounds like is Dick Gephardt," who "in the 1980s and 1990s…was the face of center-left trade Luddism, the union goons' answer to Ross Perot." Luddism refers to the Luddites, those 19th-century British textile workers who fought against technological advancements—mechanized looms—to protect their antiquated jobs. Although an aside and the subject for another day, 1980s Democrats also were oddly unconcerned about the expanding, freedom-crushing Soviet Empire. They couldn't bring themselves to unequivocally condemn communist totalitarianism, preferring instead to seek out toothless negotiations, with some Democrats oddly sympathetic to dictators such as Cuba's Fidel Castro and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega. Yes, I'm referring to Trump's awkward praise for modern despots, and his amoral approach toward Vladimir Putin and his Ukraine invasion. Remember that democratic-socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders—another progressive with whom Trump occasionally makes economic common cause—took his honeymoon in the USSR. Gephardt was fairly hard-edged in his approach to immigration, at least by Democratic standards. But the alignment between MAGA and progressivism goes much deeper than agreement on particular pro-union, anti-trade, big-spending policies. The Washington Post's conservative columnist George Will—who I heard speak during the Reagan era at a conference in Washington, D.C.—recently listed the "nine core components of progressivism" and concluded that "Trump nails every one." To summarize Will's points, Trumpism inserts politics into every aspect of society and its cultural institutions; is confident in using government to intervene; uses industrial policy to "pick winners and losers"; supports central economic planning, especially with manufacturing; expands his party's political base by handing out entitlements; uses tax policy for social engineering; believes in limitless borrowing (e.g., removing the debt limit); governs by executive fiat; and believes in "unfettered majoritarianism," or populism. There is nothing truly conservative about his administration. Reason's Veronique de Rugy sees Trump's latest tax plan—one that's too much even for Elon Musk—as "a leftist economic agenda wrapped in populist talking points." The Trump team and its cadre of former Democratic advisers, "glorify union power, rail against globalization and scoff at the very idea of limited government," she added. That is indeed pure 1980s-era Democratic leftism. If you support it, fine, but please stop accusing its foes of being RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post Donald Trump Sounds Like a Democrat From the 1980s appeared first on
Yahoo
35 minutes 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
