‘Don’t break down the door of the wrong house? Don’t traumatize its occupants?’: Justices grill government in FBI case

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that began with a 2017 incident where FBI agents accidentally raided the Atlanta home of Toi Cliatt and Trina Martin, causing severe distress to the couple and their young son. The case focuses on whether the federal government can be held responsible for the agents’ actions.

In the early morning of October 18, 2017, a group of armed and masked FBI agents forcefully entered Cliatt and Martin’s home, using a stun grenade. They handcuffed Cliatt and pointed guns at both him and Martin while their seven-year-old son hid in fear. The agents soon realized their mistake; they were four houses away from their actual target and left after a short but horrifying encounter, per NBC.

Although the agents later apologized and paid for property damage, Cliatt and Martin filed a lawsuit, claiming the incident involved false imprisonment, assault, battery, trespassing, and other violations. The key legal issue revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which generally lets people sue the federal government for harm caused by its employees’ negligence.

The Supreme Court may not let the FBI off easily

The AP mentioned the FTCA includes a “discretionary function exception,” which protects the government from being sued for actions involving policy decisions. The government argues that the agents’ actions, while clearly harmful, fall under this exception. They claim the agents were using their judgment when carrying out the warrant and that holding the government liable in such cases would lead to courts questioning law enforcement choices.

Specifically, the government points out that the FBI has no strict policy on exactly how agents should verify addresses before executing a warrant. They argue that Agent Guerra’s reliance on his GPS device, even though it was wrong, was a judgment call within his duties.

Washington Post reported that Lawyer Dylan Moore, of the libertarian Institute for Justice, said in a statement, “All Americans have the right to feel secure in their homes. When the federal government breaches that security, it has the responsibility to make things right.”

On the other hand, Cliatt and Martin, supported by members of Congress from both parties and several civil rights groups, argue that the discretionary function exception does not apply to such a serious mistake. They reference the 1974 amendments to the FTCA, which were meant to allow lawsuits in cases involving assault, battery, false imprisonment, and similar acts by federal law enforcement.

They say the agents’ actions were not a matter of policy judgment but a clear failure to take basic steps to confirm they were at the right address. They argue this is simple negligence and should not be protected by the discretionary function exception. The plaintiffs warn that if the government’s position is upheld, it would create an unfair level of immunity for law enforcement, making it nearly impossible to challenge “wrong-house” raids.

Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit, agreeing with the government. However, during Supreme Court arguments, several justices expressed strong doubts about this reasoning. Some questioned whether the absence of a policy explicitly banning the kind of extreme mistake that happened here, raiding the wrong home and terrifying the family inside, should really protect the government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the FBI incredulously, “No policy says, ‘Don’t break down the door of the wrong house? Don’t traumatize its occupants?” While there was some discussion about limiting government liability in certain law enforcement decisions, the justices seemed mostly concerned with the specific facts of this case, suggesting they might overturn the lower court’s ruling.