Supreme Court to Assess FBI’s Responsibility for Wrong-Way Raid
Last year, the 11th Circuit dismissed the lawsuit from Georgia, ruling it was shielded by sovereign immunity.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of an Atlanta family whose residence was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team.
The situation began when the federal government declined to compensate the petitioners—Curtrina Martin, her son Gabe, and her partner, Hilliard Toi Cliatt—after the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent Lawrence Guerra, executed a warrant at the incorrect address in 2017.
Believing a robbery was underway, Cliatt pulled Martin into a closet in an attempt to retrieve his legally owned shotgun. Before he could secure the weapon, an FBI agent knocked Cliatt to the ground and began questioning both him and Martin.
Meanwhile, Gabe, who was just 7 years old, could not reach his mother while the officers entered a bedroom with weapons drawn, according to the summary. Cliatt informed the agents of the address they were supposed to raid, leading them to realize they had the wrong house.
Related Stories
“After realizing their error, the FBI agents quickly exited and proceeded to raid the correct residence. Later, one agent revisited the scene, expressed apologies, and provided [Cliatt] with his supervisor’s business card to discuss covering the damages. However, when [Cliatt] called the number on that card, it became evident that the federal government had no intention of assisting,” the summary noted.
The three individuals filed suit under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) in a Georgia federal district court, alleging various state-law tort claims such as assault and battery, false arrest, negligence, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
This lawsuit faced challenges due to the federal government’s sovereign immunity, which generally protects it from being sued. The FTCA, established in 1946, allows for some claims against the government under state tort law. A tort refers to a wrongful act or violation of a right that leads to civil liability, distinct from breaches of contract.
Prior to the enactment of the FTCA, victims of torts could only seek compensation from the federal government if Congress passed a private bill for compensation, which the president then signed.
The FTCA provides limited exceptions for citizens to sue the federal government for personal injuries or property damages caused by federal employees acting within their official capacity. If an employee’s actions are performed outside the scope of their official duties, the injured party may pursue legal action against the employee personally. In 1974, the law was updated to allow tort claims against federal law enforcement officers.
The 11th Circuit concluded that the claims made in the lawsuit were barred by sovereign immunity based on either the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution or the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception.
The supremacy clause prioritizes federal law over state law.
The discretionary-function exception prohibits claims “stemming from the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty,” as noted in the CRS report, which cites the FTCA.
This means that claims arising from actions that “involve an element of judgment or choice” and are “grounded on considerations of public policy” are barred, per United States v. Gilbert (1991).
The 11th Circuit referred to its ruling in Shivers v. United States (2021), stating that even though “Guerra executed the warrant at the wrong house, his actions still ‘squarely fall within the discretionary function exception.’”
“In this instance, an FBI SWAT team committed a fundamentally negligent and wrongful act: It raided the wrong house,” stated the petition.
Yet, the 11th Circuit “denied the petitioners any cause of action.”
This ruling from the circuit court contradicts Supreme Court precedent and the decisions of other circuit courts, which suggests the need for the Supreme Court’s intervention to clarify the matter, as indicated in the petition.
“Congress could not have intended for the United States to be liable for the actions of its law enforcement officers that are discretionary and within their official duties,” she argued.
Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice representing the petitioners, stated to The Epoch Times that they are “excited that the Supreme Court has opted to hear this case and hopeful that it will restore the remedy Congress provided to ensure government accountability through the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
“While Congress has mandated that the government must take accountability for such errors, lower courts have found various means to reinstate the government’s sovereign immunity,” he added.
Jaicomo anticipates that the Supreme Court will hear the case by the end of April.
The Epoch Times reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice for comment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
