In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has sent the case of Jaleesa Martin and her family back to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, providing them another opportunity to pursue claims against the federal government following a mistaken FBI raid.
The unanimous decision has been interpreted by legal experts, including Sharon Fairley, a law professor at the University of Chicago, as a beacon of hope for the plaintiffs involved. Fairley noted that while the case still poses challenges for the families, it holds potential implications for holding federal law enforcement accountable in similar situations.
“It’s an important case just because these circumstances happen more frequently than we would hope,” Fairley, a former federal prosecutor, emphasized.
The incident in question took place on October 18, 2017, when Martin, her partner Toi Cliatt, and her son Gabe Watson were abruptly awakened by a six-agent SWAT team. The agents forcefully entered their home, discharged a flashbang grenade in their hallway, and aimed weapons at the family before realizing they had made a grave mistake by targeting the wrong residence.
The intended target of the raid was an alleged violent gang member who lived only a block away, illustrating a severe lapse in judgment and operational execution.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling pointed out that the 11th Circuit misapplied federal law by dismissing the family’s claims too hastily. The appellate court is now tasked with determining whether an exception within the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) shields the government from accountability.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated that the family’s claims could withstand scrutiny since the actions of the FBI agents appeared to be extremely unreasonable given the circumstances.
“It is hard to see how (the lead agent’s) conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin’s door and terrorizing the home’s occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect,” wrote Sotomayor.
Following the raid, Martin, Cliatt, and Gabe reported receiving an apology from the lead FBI agent, but the emotional and physical ramifications of the incident have lingered, compounded by damage to their home. In case filings, the federal government maintained that the lead agent had relied on his GPS device for the raid and later assured the family that the FBI would cover repairs for their damaged property.
The family filed their lawsuit against the federal government and the agent responsible in 2019, alleging offenses including assault and battery, false arrest, and violations of their rights.
However, the Atlanta federal judge dismissed the case, a decision that was later upheld by the 11th Circuit. These lower court rulings cited broad legal protections that typically shield federal entities and their employees from lawsuits.
The appellate court ruled that the lead agent was protected from liability and that the claims against the government under the FTCA were barred due to exceptions to this law and provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
Despite the federal government’s pleas for the Supreme Court to dismiss the family’s claims, legal experts underscore the potential for wider ramifications regarding accountability for federal employees and law enforcement.
The justices found that it was misguided to reject the lawsuit solely based on the Supremacy Clause, which indicates that federal law prevails in conflicts between federal and state laws. Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that the FTCA represents an exception to this rule, indicating the federal government cannot use this clause as a defense.
“Congress has entered the field and expressly bound the federal government to accept liability under state tort law on the same terms as a ‘private individual,’” Gorsuch wrote.
Further comments by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that wrong-house raids are likely not the type of errors meant to be shielded from liability.
Patrick Jaicomo, the attorney advocating for Martin’s family, expressed his approval of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
He stated, “The Court’s decision today acknowledged how far the circuit courts have strayed from the purpose of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is to ensure remedies to the victims of federal harms — intentional and negligent alike.”
Jaicomo expressed confidence in continuing the fight with the Martins in the 11th Circuit and aims to make it easier for everyday citizens to seek accountability against the government for its wrongful actions and violations of rights.
This Supreme Court ruling has the potential to reshape legal standards regarding police accountability and bring to light greater scrutiny of federal law enforcement practices nationwide.
image source from：https://www.ajc.com/news/2025/06/us-supreme-court-revives-atlanta-familys-lawsuit-over-botched-fbi-raid/
