When they Kick in the Door, waiving the 44, Can you Sue the Feds?

Supreme Court Decision Summary: Martin v. United States (2025)
By Christopher Simon – June 13, 2025

Introduction

In Martin v. United States, decided June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a deeply troubling and unfortunately common scenario: a wrong-house police raid by federal agents. The case arose from a 2017 SWAT operation in suburban Atlanta, where FBI agents executed a raid on the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and Martin’s 7-year-old son—innocent civilians who suffered injury and terror when a flash-bang grenade and armed officers shattered their quiet morning.

The Court’s unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, clarifies the legal landscape under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) regarding when the federal government can be held civilly liable for such incidents. The ruling is a setback for the Eleventh Circuit’s broad reading of government immunity and marks a shift in the interpretation of two crucial provisions of the FTCA: the law enforcement proviso and the discretionary-function exception.

Background of the Case

On October 18, 2017, the FBI targeted a suspected gang hideout at 3741 Landau Lane. Instead, they mistakenly raided 3756 Denville Trace. The error was due to Agent Guerra using a personal GPS device—later discarded—and the agents failing to read the street sign or visible house number.

The raid left the residents injured, traumatized, and with significant property damage. They filed suit under the FTCA, which permits individuals to seek damages for torts committed by federal employees within the scope of their employment. The district court and Eleventh Circuit sided with the government, interpreting existing FTCA exceptions broadly and effectively barring the suit.

Legal Issues Before the Court

Two main questions were addressed:

Does the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso override only the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), or does it also override the discretionary-function exception in §2680(a)?
Can the United States assert a Supremacy Clause defense in FTCA cases to avoid liability?

Key Supreme Court Holdings

1. Narrow Scope of the Law Enforcement Proviso

The Court ruled that the law enforcement proviso only overrides the FTCA’s intentional-tort exception (§2680(h)). It does not displace other exceptions, including the discretionary-function exception (§2680(a)). In other words the law enforcement proviso is not a knock out punch for the case.

This reverses the Eleventh Circuit’s unique reading that allowed intentional-tort claims to bypass all FTCA exceptions if committed by law enforcement officers.

“Congress chose to embed the proviso within subsection (h)… This placement confirms the proviso’s limited application to subsection (h) alone.” — Justice Gorsuch

As a practical matter. the Plaintiffs here needed the Court to allow them to argue that the Officer’s actions were not immune under the FTCA under the discretionary function exception. The discretionary-function exception is a rule in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) that protects the federal government from being sued for actions by its employees when those actions involve judgment, decision-making, or discretion, especially if related to public policy or official duties. In other words, you can’t sue them if they make the wrong judgment call in a grey situation.

The plaintiffs (the innocent family inside the home) claimed they were assaulted and traumatized. They sued the U.S. government for negligence (careless planning and execution of the raid) and intentional torts (assault, battery, false imprisonment).

Here’s how the discretionary-function exception came into play:

A. The government argued that Agent Guerra’s planning decisions—like using his personal GPS, failing to double-check the address, and ignoring clear signs—were discretionary, meaning he had the freedom to make judgment calls.

B. Because those choices involved discretion, the government said the lawsuit for negligence should be blocked under §2680(a).

C. The lower courts agreed, saying Guerra had discretion in how he prepared for the raid, so the negligence claim couldn’t move forward.

The Supreme Court didn’t rule on whether Guerra’s actions were protected by the discretionary-function exception. Instead, it clarified that:

This exception still applies even when law enforcement officers are involved.
It must be evaluated separately from the “law enforcement proviso” that allows certain intentional tort claims to proceed.
The court must now look closely at whether Agent Guerra’s specific actions—like using a personal GPS and not checking the address—were truly the kind of policy-based decisions the exception is meant to protect, or just plain carelessness.

2. Rejection of Supremacy Clause Defense

The Court emphatically rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s invocation of a Supremacy Clause defense, which had allowed the government to sidestep liability so long as the officer’s actions bore “some nexus” to federal policy.

Instead, the FTCA’s text controls. The United States is liable if a private individual in similar circumstances would be liable under state law—here, Georgia tort law.

“The FTCA is the ‘supreme’ federal law governing tort liability… not a freestanding constitutional defense.” — Justice Gorsuch

What Comes Next?

The case is remanded to the Eleventh Circuit, which must now:

Reassess whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs’ negligence or intentional-tort claims—without relying on the law enforcement proviso to bypass this inquiry.
Evaluate liability under Georgia law, using the FTCA’s rule that the government is liable if a “private individual under like circumstances” would be.

Takeaways: When Can the Government Be Sued for a Wrong-House Raid?

The decision in Martin provides important guidance for plaintiffs and lawyers navigating FTCA claims involving federal law enforcement:

✅ You can sue the federal government for:

Intentional torts such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, if committed by law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment.
Negligence—but only if the discretionary-function exception does not apply. This is akin to the ministerial versus discretionary distinction in Georgia Law.

❌ You cannot sue the federal government when:

The government’s conduct falls under the discretionary-function exception—typically where agents exercised policy-driven discretion, even if poorly.
The claim is for an intentional tort not enumerated in the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso (e.g., defamation, misrepresentation).
You’re relying on a Supremacy Clause defense to shield the government; the Court has now foreclosed this theory entirely.

⚠️ What’s still unclear:

How courts will interpret the scope of discretion in wrong-house raids.
Whether carelessness or unconstitutional conduct can still fall under the discretionary-function shield.
If courts will carve out exceptions for especially egregious errors in execution.

Final Thoughts

Martin v. United States is a pivotal FTCA decision that corrects overreach by the Eleventh Circuit and reaffirms that statutory text—not vague appeals to federal supremacy—must control sovereign immunity and liability. While it doesn’t guarantee redress for every victim of law enforcement mistakes, it restores a clearer path for legitimate claims.

The Court will have to decide if its reasonable for law enforcement to screw up this badly by using his personal GPS, failing to double-check the address, and ignoring street signs. This case would be dead if they hit the wrong house next door or raided the right house and the tenant had changed, unbeknownst to them. Those would be clearly within the ambit of officer’s discretion.

For anyone injured during a federal law enforcement operation gone wrong, this case confirms: the door to justice may not be wide open, but it isn’t shut, either. Proceed carefully, but don’t hesitate to knock.

Christopher Simon is a civil trial attorney with a focus on personal injury and federal liability cases.