This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
On October 18, 2017, the FBI mistakenly raided a family home in suburban Atlanta belonging to Curtrina Martin and others instead of the intended target.
The petitioners argue that the statutory proviso should be applied more broadly.
The petitioners contend that the Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of the discretionary‑function exception would eliminate most of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the liability the proviso was intended to provide.
The Court held that the FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit’s Supremacy Clause defense.
The Court held that the Eleventh Circuit must assess the issue without reference to its mistaken view that the law‑enforcement proviso applies to subsection (a).
The Court concluded that decisions such as In re Neagle do not create a judicial or legislative immunity defense.
- [1] a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdf, p. 2
- [2] a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdf, p. 3
- [3] dc0e0ab562e1fc95adfc-r1-ae8402906c3f6b8a.pdf, p. 55
- [4] a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdf, p. 16
- [5] a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdf, p. 21
- [6] a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdf, p. 20
Background and question before the Court
The case arose from an FBI raid on the wrong house on October 18, 2017.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Justice Thomas asked whether a proviso such as this could extend more broadly than the case at hand.
Justice Jackson asked whether the Court should not reach the Supremacy Clause question.
According to Justice Jackson, justice Jackson expressed concern about jurisdiction to decide a question that never appeared in the cert petition.
According to Justice Jackson, justice Jackson noted that the Eleventh Circuit is the only circuit that has adopted this line of thinking.
- [1] a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdf, p. 2
- [2] a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdf, p. 2
- [3] dc0e0ab562e1fc95adfc-r1-ae8402906c3f6b8a.pdf, p. 30
- [4] dc0e0ab562e1fc95adfc-r1-ae8402906c3f6b8a.pdf, p. 45
- [5] dc0e0ab562e1fc95adfc-r1-ae8402906c3f6b8a.pdf, p. 46
- [6] dc0e0ab562e1fc95adfc-r1-ae8402906c3f6b8a.pdf, p. 53
What each side argues
Petitioners
Petitioners argue for a broader application of the proviso.
Petitioners contend that the Eleventh Circuit’s understanding of the discretionary‑function exception would eliminate most of the FTCA and the liability the proviso was enacted to provide.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked whether a proviso such as this could extend more broadly than the case at hand.
Justice Kavanaugh asked, “But, if so, they can say that?”
Justice Jackson asked whether the Court should not reach the Supremacy Clause question.
According to Justice Jackson, justice Jackson expressed concern about jurisdiction to decide a question that never appeared in the cert petition.
According to Justice Jackson, justice Jackson noted that the Eleventh Circuit is the only circuit that has adopted this line of thinking.
What the Court decided
The Court held that the FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit’s Supremacy Clause defense.
The Court held that none of the defenses include In re Neagle and that decision did not recognize a judicial or legislative immunity.
The Court held that the Eleventh Circuit must assess the issue without reference to its mistaken view that the law‑enforcement proviso applies to subsection (a).
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a2d0d68aa45eb89add4d-r1-8933bf7d996bc5c2.pdfopinion
- dc0e0ab562e1fc95adfc-r1-ae8402906c3f6b8a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 18, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.