For Immediate Release: July 10, 2025

SCOTUS Rules FBI SWAT Team Can Be Held Accountable for Targeting the Wrong Home and Terrorizing Innocent Family

WASHINGTON, DC — In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can be held accountable for a botched FBI SWAT raid that targeted the wrong home and terrorized an innocent family.

The case stems from a middle-of-the-night SWAT raid in which heavily armed FBI agents in tactical gear stormed the home of Curtrina Martin, deployed a flashbang grenade, and held Hilliard Cliatt and Martin at gunpoint before realizing they had the wrong address. The Supreme Court’s decision in Martin v. United States affirms that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause does not shield the federal government from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The Rutherford Institute and the National Police Accountability Project filed an amicus brief urging the Court to allow victims of such reckless raids to hold the government accountable.

“These SWAT raids have become a thinly veiled, court-sanctioned excuse to let heavily armed police crash through doors in the dead of night,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Too often, they’re marked by incompetence, devastation, and death—leaving a trail of broken homes and broken lives, while law enforcement escapes accountability.”

As part of “Operation Red Tape,” an FBI initiative targeting gang activity in Georgia, agents sought to execute an arrest warrant at the home of a suspected gang member. However, during a pre-raid drive-by, the team leader used his personal GPS and misidentified the home—failing to verify the street name and house number. Hours later, as part of a pre-dawn raid, the SWAT team descended on Martin’s house, a block from the actual target, breached the front door, and deployed a flashbang. Believing they were being burglarized, Martin attempted to reach her 7-year-old child. Only after detaining Cliatt and Martin at gunpoint did agents realize their mistake in targeting the wrong house.

Having been “left with personal injuries and property damage—but few explanations and no compensation,” the family filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, trespass, false arrest and imprisonment, emotional distress, and assault and battery under the FTCA. Although the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the case—holding that the Supremacy Clause barred such claims—the Supreme Court reversed. Pointing out that “the Supremacy Clause supplies a rule of decision when federal and state laws conflict”, the Supreme Court explained that the FTCA itself is the “supreme” federal law and explicitly allows state-law tort claims against the government. In a concurring opinion, Justices Sotomayor and Jackson noted that Congress specifically amended the FTCA to hold the federal government accountable after a 1973 incident where 15 officers mistakenly raided multiple homes, holding innocent families at gunpoint. That amendment, they emphasized, was designed to ensure accountability for precisely these kinds of abuses. The Court sent the lawsuit back for further proceedings.

The amicus brief in Martin v. United States was authored by Eugene R. Fidell with the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic, along with Charles A. Rothfeld of Mayer Brown LLP and Paul W. Hughes of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Martin v. United States Case History

July 10, 2025 • U.S. Supreme Court Holds FBI Liable for Botched Raid
April 10, 2025 • U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear FBI Raid Case 

• Amicus brief
• Supreme Court Opinion

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.

Source: https://tinyurl.com/yc38sh3n

To donate via PayPal, please click below: