When the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has a difference of opinion between the justices, it tends to garner a good deal of attention. However, SCOTUS justices are in complete accord more often than many might think. Recently, they've delivered a handful of unanimous opinions.
On June 12, 2025, all nine members of the Court were again in agreement as it ruled that lower courts had incorrectly tossed out a case brought by a family against the federal government. SCOTUS considered the scope of two exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and whether it would cover a family terrorized by a mistakenly targeted FBI raid in 2017.
Blame the GPS
In the early morning of October 18, 2017, a house in suburban Atlanta was the subject of an FBI raid. The agents had everything they needed to capture a gang leader: a warrant, a battering ram, the element of surprise, and a flashbang grenade. Once they'd accessed the house and restrained the inhabitants, they discovered they had one additional and unexpected element — the wrong address.
Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and their seven-year-old son (given an alias for public court documents to protect his identity as a minor) learned the true meaning of the phrase "rude awakening" as the FBI carried out its raid. Waking to chaos and believing they were the target of a home invasion, the couple attempted to hide in a bedroom closet. Dragged out by the agents, Cliatt was handcuffed while both had multiple weapons trained on them.
As the couple was being restrained and Martin's cries for the safety of her child went unheeded, one of the agents picked up a piece of mail and discovered a slight error — they were at the wrong house. Despite having previously scouted the intended raid location, an FBI agent said he didn't notice that his personal global positioning system device had brought him to the wrong address and missed other identifiers like a street sign for Denville Trace and a different car in the driveway.
Cliatt and Martin were released. The agents departed, leaving behind a trail of destruction and a traumatized family. Martin filed suit against the federal government in 2019 for false arrest, negligence, false imprisonment, and assault and battery under the FTCA. She charged that the agents were guilty of both negligent and intentional torts.
Government Immunity From Torts Is Complicated
Under common law, the federal government is generally immune from lawsuits. This goes back to the concept of "sovereign immunity." Congress changed this when it enacted the FTCA. It is a federal law that authorizes people to sue government employees who commit torts. This is not a blanket allowance to sue government employees. There are 13 exceptions to the FTCA, two of which were at issue in this case.
The first exception involves intentional torts. People cannot sue the federal government for intentional torts when agents are acting within the scope of their employment. Unless, that is, the intentional tort involves "acts or omissions" by law enforcement officers. This is known as the "law enforcement proviso." (Yes, it is an exception to the exception.)
Another is the "discretionary function" exception. This prevents a federal officer from being sued when they exercise discretion in carrying out their job duties. This is meant to prohibit people from suing law enforcement officers who must make judgment calls when investigating crimes.
Did either exception apply in this case? A district court sided with the government in tossing out the case, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. According to the Eleventh Circuit, while the "law enforcement proviso" applied to both exceptions at issue, the case could still not move forward because the plaintiffs could not sue unless they could also sue a private actor for the same conduct under the laws of the jurisdiction they are in when the "act or commission" occurred.
Put simply (well, in a slightly less complicated way), the federal government can defeat lawsuits under the law enforcement proviso if it can show that the law enforcement officer complied with federal law and advanced federal policy. The Eleventh Circuit held that this included the discretionary function exception.
Not so fast, said SCOTUS. First, Justice Gorsuch explained, the law enforcement proviso applies only to the ban on intentional torts, not the discretionary function, as the 11th Circuit held. Secondly, the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. Instead, the FTCA incorporates state law as the liability standard in tort claims, and typically, there is no conflict between federal and state law for the Supremacy Clause to resolve (there wasn't one here that the Eleventh Circuit identified).
What does this all mean? In this case, the Eleventh Circuit must decide whether the family's claims are barred by the discretionary function exception. If they are not, then the family can bring a lawsuit against the law enforcement officers, provided the family can also show that a private individual could be sued under similar circumstances. That would be a pretty low bar, in this case.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, wrote a concurrence to help the Eleventh Circuit along, suggesting that there are reasons to think the discretionary function does not apply in this case. The Eleventh Circuit will be able to decide that question on its own, however.
Related Resources
- Torts and Personal Injury Law (FindLaw's Accident and Injuries Legal Guide)
- The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption (FindLaw's Legal System)
- Can You Sue Government Officials? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
