For much of our nation’s history, sovereign immunity shielded the federal government from liability for the acts of federal employees. In 1946, Congress enacted the FTCA to waive sovereign immunity and provide a remedy for individuals harmed by the torts of federal employees. Nearly thirty years later, Congress extended the FTCA—adding the law enforcement proviso explicitly to ensure that the statute covers wrong house raids. This was of no consolation to Trina Martin when the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied her claim, asserting that the FBI agents’ actions fell under the “discretionary-function exception” to the FTCA, thus barring her claims, leaving her and her family without recourse.
Next month the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Martin v. U.S. to address this critical issue. The Cato Institute, along with Public Accountability and the ACLU filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Eleventh Circuit. The brief explains that Congress added the law enforcement proviso in 1974, following two wrong house raids, explicitly to ensure that individuals like Trina Martin have a remedy for harms caused by federal agents executing wrong house raids. The brief further argues that the “discretionary-function exception” should not apply to unconstitutional conduct, such as the mistaken raid of the Martin home. Lastly, the brief cautions the Court not to extend the judicially invented doctrine of qualified immunity to shield the federal government from liability under the FTCA. The Supreme Court should apply the law as enacted by Congress and allow Trina Martin’s lawsuit to proceed.