Cato Expert Discusses Martin v. United States Oral Arguments

“Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Martin v. United States. In 2017, under the cover of darkness, Trina Martin and her family endured a terrifying ordeal when an FBI SWAT team raided their Atlanta home—detonating a flashbang in their living room. Agents quickly realized that they were at the wrong address and abruptly left, leaving the home in shambles, the family’s inner peace shattered by government agents who couldn’t be bothered to do their due diligence.

While insurance covered the physical damage, the Martin family sought redress for the severe emotional trauma brought about by the raid under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA). For much of our nation’s history, sovereign immunity shielded the federal government from liability for the acts of federal employees. In 1946, Congress enacted the FTCA to waive sovereign immunity and provide a remedy for individuals harmed by the torts of federal employees. The original FTCA included an exception for intentional torts. However, in response to two wrong-house raids by federal agents as the War on Drugs intensified, Congress later added the law enforcement proviso. The proviso expanded the scope of the FTCA—waiving sovereign immunity for intentional torts committed by federal law enforcement officers, including the FBI. This was of no consolation to Trina Martin and her family when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied her claim, asserting that the FBI agents’ actions fell under the “discretionary function exception” to the FTCA, thus barring her claims, leaving her and her family without recourse.

The Cato Institute along with Public Accountability and the ACLU filed an amicus brief at the merits stage asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Eleventh Circuit. The brief explains that Congress added the law enforcement proviso explicitly to ensure that people like the Martin family have a remedy for harms caused by federal agents executing wrong house raids. The brief further argues that the “discretionary-function exception,” which shields the government for liability for actions involving policy decisions, should not apply to unconstitutional conduct—such as the mistaken raid of the Martin home. Lastly, the brief cautions the Court not to extend the judicially invented doctrine of qualified immunity to shield the federal government from liability under the FTCA.

Early this morning news broke of an Oklahoma family traumatized when ICE raided the wrong home. Despite what the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office may think, it is not asking too much of federal agents to confirm they have the right address before barging into someone’s home and denoting explosive devices. The Supreme Court should reverse the Eleventh Circuit, apply the law as enacted by Congress, and allow Trina Martin’s lawsuit on behalf of herself and her traumatized family to proceed.”