We just fought for government accountability at the Supreme Court

Dear John:

This morning marked another milestone in our fight for accountability: An IJ case team, led by IJ Senior Attorney Patrick Jaicomo, made our case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of our clients Trina Martin, her son Gabe, and Toi Cliatt—and by extension, countless other Americans harmed by government misconduct.

As you may recall, Trina, Toi, and then seven-year-old Gabe were victims of a wrong house raid, where an FBI SWAT team broke down their door early in the morning, detonated a flash-bang grenade in their living room, and swept through the home with assault rifles. The SWAT team had every opportunity to ensure that they had the right address but failed to do so. When the government fails to take basic precautions, it must be held accountable. Government cannot recklessly violate people’s rights and then walk away without doing anything to fix the mess they’ve left behind.

You can hear Trina Martin describe the harrowing experience and its aftermath by watching or listening to the most recent episode of Beyond the Brief below.

The argument went well, with the Justices engaging thoughtfully with the key issues. I feel fairly good about a win for our side, with the main question being how narrowly or broadly the Court will rule. There were several encouraging moments. Two particularly striking comments came from the Justices as the attorney for the United States tried to argue that the federal government should avoid accountability through a loophole intended to shield discretionary policymaking because agents taking the time to ensure the right address would have “policy implications.”

The first comment came from Justice Gorsuch, who rightly countered by saying, "No policy says, ‘don’t break down the wrong door of a house? Don’t traumatize its occupants?’”

The second comment came from an incensed Justice Sotomayor, who flatly rejected the government’s argument by saying, “That is so ridiculous.” Justices are rarely so blunt in their comments, and no other Justice rode to the government’s defense after she made it.

Our attorney Patrick did a terrific job throughout the argument, showing a total mastery of the issues involved. He even made the Justices smile during his rebuttal when he returned to the policy argument made by the government by stating: “as [opposing counsel] said, the government’s policy is to raid the right house. They didn’t do that. … If you really, really meant to drop the pizza off at the right address, it doesn’t matter, you still need to give a refund if you drop it off at the wrong address.”

It’s an amusing, real-life analogy, but it also makes a serious point. Unless the Supreme Court does something in the Martin case, food delivery drivers will have to meet a higher standard of care when dropping off an order than heavily armed FBI agents doing an early morning raid at the wrong address.

We expect the Court to issue a decision by the end of June. If you want to support this work, consider making a donation to help IJ take on these battles for accountability, the rule of law, and the promise of justice for all Americans.

Scott

Scott G. Bullock

President and Chief Counsel

Institute for Justice

Donate Today