Martin v. United States (2025)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Martin sued the federal government after an FBI wrong-house raid caused significant harm. The government argued the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s discretionary function exception and the Supremacy Clause barred the claim. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso allows suits for certain intentional torts by federal officers, and neither the discretionary function exception nor Supremacy Clause immunized the government in this context.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision opens the door for victims of mistaken law enforcement raids to seek damages against the federal government. It limits the scope of government immunity in law enforcement misconduct cases.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: A path for victims of wrong-house raids and similar law enforcement misconduct to pursue claims under the FTCA.
• Took Away: The government’s blanket immunity argument under the discretionary function exception and Supremacy Clause.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Supporters view it as a necessary check on government abuse and accountability for victims. Critics argue it may burden law enforcement and invite a wave of lawsuits.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
If federal agents raid the wrong house and cause harm, victims now have a clearer legal avenue to sue the U.S. government for damages.

• Federal Tort Claims Act
• Law Enforcement
• Wrong-House Raid
• Supremacy Clause