On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Martin v. United States, a closely watched case that could redefine the limits of federal government accountability in cases of law enforcement misconduct, specifically so-called “wrong-house raids.”
The case stems from a 2017 incident in Atlanta, Georgia. FBI and SWAT agents raided the home of Curtrina Martin, her partner, and her 7-year-old son while they were asleep. The agents were executing an arrest warrant for a neighbor suspected of gang activity, but entered the wrong home by mistake. According to filings, the agents used a flashbang grenade to breach the front door, rushed inside armed and in full tactical gear, and found Martin and her partner in a bedroom closet. The agents handcuffed Martin’s partner. Martin’s son was in his bedroom alone, while the agents confronted the adults. The parties dispute how long it took for the agents to realize they were in the wrong house and end the raid. One agent later returned to the house to apologize, document the damage, and note that the FBI would pay for repairs.
The family filed a lawsuit in 2019 against the FBI and the federal agents involved, citing harm under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA generally waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity in certain tort cases, allowing individuals to sue for damages caused by federal employees. The law includes exceptions, however, such as the “discretionary function exception,” which preserves immunity for acts involving judgment or choice. The FTCA also generally excludes intentional torts, such as assault and battery, but there is an exception to the exception, known as the “law enforcement proviso,” which provides potential liability for certain intentional torts committed by federal investigative or law enforcement officers.
The Supreme Court must consider two legal questions:
- Whether the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause prohibits individuals from suing under the FTCA when federal employees’ actions are related to carrying out federal policy and can be interpreted as following federal laws, even if those actions are negligent or wrongful.
- Whether the discretionary function exception can apply to cases arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional tort exception of the FTCA.
The government argues that it cannot be held liable for every wrong judgment call of a federal officer, while Martin and her family say that Congress intended to hold the government accountable in these situations with the 1974 amendment that added the law enforcement proviso. The Court will likely issue its opinion this summer.
Additional Reading
Supreme Court weighs whether law enforcement can be held accountable for raid on wrong house, NPR (April 29, 2025)
Federal Tort Claims Act — Injury Lawsuits Against the Federal Government, Justia
Image Credit: Ceri Breeze / Shutterstock.com