Supreme Court grants review Martin v. United States wrongful FBI SWAT raid

Utterly idiotic ruling from 11th Circuit to be argued before Supreme
Court this term, likely in April. "Idiotic" is my word. The appeal was
suggested because of circuit split. However, the federal government (is
there a solicitor general at the moment?) opposed review, as the opinion
doesn't affect the outcome of the case. The government's reasoning makes
no sense to me.

When the government refuses to respond to a case granted review, the
Supreme Court appoints an attorney, in this case, a former Clarence
Thomas law clerk who gets to argue before the Court for the first time.

A family in suburban Atlanta whose home was raided by FBI SWAT in 2015
in error was barred from suing for false imprisonment and assault and
battery and other torts in state law (although the suit had to be filed
in federal court).

We all learned in elementary school that the Eleventh Amendment bars
specific suits against the federal government but there is no sovereign
immumity in the US Constitution as there is in state constitutions. It's
from common law through certain enactments of common law principles into
federal law going back to the first Congress.

The present federal law is the Tort Claims Act of 1946. Sovereign
immumity gives a plaintiff permission to sue the federal government
umder limited circumstances. (Can you imagine in a business lawsuit that
the party alleged to have committed the tort must give permission to be
sued?) The circumstances, in part, are that a business might be required
to defend itself with a similar set of facts under state law. But
certain claims are barred, according to one of the articles:

The law carves out an exception to that rule, however, for
state-law claims that stem from a government officials
performance of a discretionary duty or function.

FBI SWAT raided the wrong house. Both the house number and street were
different. Apparently the city was correct. (Somebody commented that he
was dismayed that ability to verify that one is at the house named on
the warrant isn't a prerequisite for leading a raid.)

The parties were handcuffed and guns were pointed at them. Illegal
trespass and plenty of property damage before FBI would acknowledge its
mistake. One of the raiders said they'd make repairs but that never
happened.

At district court the claim didn't survive the motion to dismiss. 11th
Circuit (I assume it was a three-judge panel) upheld the trial court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the
district courts dismissal of Martin and Cliatts claims. The
family then came to the Supreme Court, which agreed on Monday to
decide whether their claims under the FTCA are barred under the
Constitutions supremacy clause, on the theory that decisions
like the one at issue by the FBI agents in this case can have a
connection to advancing federal policy and therefore takes
precedence over state law, and to weigh in on the application of
the discretionary function exception.

It's a supremacy clause issue because even a bad act of the federal
government advances policy?

It's an Institute for Justice case.

Here's SCOTUSBLOG

about the friend of the court brief to be filed and argued

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/outside-attorneys-appointed-to-argue-in-two-cases/

and about the case itself

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/justices-take-up-case-on-right-to-sue-over-mistaken-swat-raid/

Steve Lehto video as he's a big promoter of Institute of Justice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfg3O3cK0lw

It's the Roberts court, so it's not likely that there will be a
broad-based decision even if they reverse the dismissal.