Rule of Law

Support From Across the Ideological Spectrum Pours in for Family Seeking Justice at the Supreme Court Over FBI Wrong House Raid

WASHINGTON—Before the sun rose over their Atlanta home one morning in 2017, Trina Martin, her son Gabe, and her partner Toi Cliatt were jolted awake when an FBI SWAT team rammed in their front door. The officers—who had stormed the wrong house—held the innocent family at gunpoint until they realized their mistake. Now, eight years later, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the family’s case against the federal government for the blundered raid.

As the argument approaches, supporters from across the ideological spectrum have filed briefs supporting Trina, Gabe, and Toi.

Most notably, a bipartisan, bicameral group of members of Congress called on the Supreme Court to correct lower courts’ misreading of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law under which the family sued the United States. Congress passed the FTCA to waive the federal government’s immunity from being sued whenever one of its employees causes harm. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twisted certain exceptions to the FTCA and invented new ones out of whole cloth to rule that the family’s claims were barred.

As Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), alongside Representatives Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) point out, this was wrong—Congress expressly amended the FTCA in the 1970s to ensure that victims of federal wrong-house raids can be made whole. The 11th Circuit’s ruling, the members explain, nullified Congress’ amendment “in the exact scenario that it was enacted to address.”

“Such unequivocal support from an ideologically diverse group of sitting legislators shows that this case cuts across party lines,” said Institute for Justice Attorney Dylan Moore. “All Americans have the right to feel secure in their homes. The Members’ brief sends a clear signal to the Supreme Court: When the federal government breaches that security, it has the responsibility to make things right.”

Alongside the brief from members of Congress, eight other briefs have been filed by nonprofit organizations and a prominent law professor. Each asks the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling below.

Professor Gregory Sisk, who wrote the only law school casebook on the subject of civil litigation with the federal government, encourages the Court to “return to the plain text of the” FTCA and put an end to judge-made rules that can make it impossible for victims to sue.

Public Accountability, a nonprofit organization that promotes access to civil justice for people harmed by the government, teamed up with the ACLU and the Cato Institute to point out that the FTCA was “tailor-made to address the problem in this case.”

New Civil Liberties Alliance, a public-interest law firm that focuses on administrative law, writes in its brief that the 11th Circuit’s ruling “reimposes immunity where Congress explicitly removed it.” If that ruling is allowed to stand, NCLA explains, it would “render wrong-house raids, excessive force, and other egregious abuses committed by federal law enforcement officers all but unchallengeable in court[.]”

The National Police Accountability Project and Rutherford Institute document the real-world impact of wrong-house raids. They write that “such raids, which occur with alarming frequency, may turn into nightmarish assaults on unsuspecting families who are often asleep when heavily armed federal agents storm their homes. For the victims, the experience causes serious damage and leaves lasting scars.”

Other briefs make clear that the support for Trina, Gabe, and Toi’s case transcends partisan politics. Progressive groups like the Constitutional Accountability Center and Public Citizen decried the 11th Circuit’s decision in individual briefs, while various groups supporting gun rights united in a single brief that asks the Supreme Court to make things right.

Additional information on Martin v. U.S., including photos, links to video interviews, and body cam footage from outside the home are available at: https://ij.org/case/martin-v-united-states/.

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
January 12, 2026

Sanders Warns Powell Probe Part of Trump Plan to ‘Intimidate and Destroy’ All Critics

Common Dreams
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday warned that the Trump administration’s targeting of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for criminal investigation was part of...
Rule of Law
January 6, 2026

CAC RELEASE: Five Years After the January 6th Attack, We Remember an Assault on Democracy

WASHINGTON, DC – Upon the fifth anniversary of the January 6th attack on the Capitol,...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
January 2, 2026

Make 2026 the Year of Thomas Paine

The Nation
As America celebrates its 250th birthday, remember the founder who rallied the people against British...
Rule of Law
December 15, 2025

The Leadership Conference and 257 Other Groups Voice Strong Concerns About House Hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
December 15, 2025 The Honorable Chip Roy, Chairman The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member...
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Rise Economy v. Vought

In Rise Economy v. Vought, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are lawful.
Rule of Law
December 11, 2025

Not Above the Law Coalition Demands Accountability: Trump’s Illegal National Guard Deployments Threaten Democracy

Common Dreams
WASHINGTON - As the Senate Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on the Trump administration’s deployment...