The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments regarding a 2017 incident where a SWAT team mistakenly conducted a raid on the wrong house, drawing expressions of sympathy from several justices. In the case, Hilliard Toi Cliatt and Curtrina Martin, along with Martin’s seven-year-old son, were subject to a pre-dawn raid at their suburban Atlanta home. The intrusion included a battering ram entry and a flashbang grenade deployment, after which Cliatt and Martin were held at gunpoint. The raid, led by FBI Special Agent Lawrence Guerra, targeted the wrong address due to a failure to verify the correct location before execution.
Represented by attorney Patrick Jaicomo, the plaintiffs are challenging the 11th Circuit’s ruling which favored the government, arguing that such actions by FBI agents should not be shielded under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) “discretionary function” exception. This legal exception often bars claims against government actions deemed discretionary. Jaicomo contended this exception should not apply to claims covered by the FTCA’s “law-enforcement proviso” which addresses intentional torts by federal officers.
Justices expressed differing perspectives on whether these two provisions of the FTCA are mutually exclusive. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned how far the law-enforcement proviso should apply, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson discussed the possibility of overlapping between discretionary functions and certain law enforcement actions. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was skeptical about delving into issues not initially set for review.
While Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Frederick Liu argued that the law-enforcement proviso does not override the discretionary function exception, several justices expressed doubts. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance, challenged the idea that federal officers had broad discretion to breach the wrong premises without policy restraint.
The case also raised constitutional questions related to the 11th Circuit’s decision, which barred claims based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause. This legal principle prioritizes federal laws over state laws, potentially shielding government actions. The supreme court is considering directions that might exempt Martin and Cliatt’s claims from the supremacy clause’s influence.
Find more details about the justices’ reactions and deliberations at SCOTUSblog. A decision in the case is anticipated by late June or early July, and could have significant implications for how discretionary functions are interpreted in light of intentional torts under the FTCA.