Supreme Court Decides Martin v. United States

On June 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Martin v. United States, No. 24-362, holding that under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., the law enforcement carveout to the intentional tort exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to the discretionary function exception, and the Supremacy Clause is not a defense under the FTCA.

In attempting to execute search and arrest warrants at a suspected gang-affiliated residence, federal officers raided the wrong house, causing property damage and personal injuries to the innocent residents of the home. The FBI Special Agent leading the charge attributed the mistake to an error in his personal GPS device. Neither he nor the six-member SWAT team recognized that the home they entered did not match the description in the warrant. The residents of the home sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging that the officers were negligent and committed intentional torts.

Federal employees normally enjoy sovereign immunity from suit while discharging official duties. The FTCA waives that immunity and permits injured parties to sue the United States for specifically identified tortious conduct. The FTCA’s waiver is itself subject to a list of exceptions which reinstate sovereign immunity. Relevant here are the “intentional tort” exception and the “discretionary function” exception.

As to the intentional tort exception, the FTCA carves out of the exception certain intentional torts, including false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, and battery, when they are brought against law enforcement officers. In other words, the FTCA permits suits alleging those claims against law enforcement officers to proceed. The discretionary function exception provides sovereign immunity for actions involving an element of judgment or choice by the federal employee. The discretionary function exception does not contain the law enforcement carveout found in the intentional tort exception.

Here, the district court ruled in favor of the United States. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, based on its unique reading of the FTCA that applies the law enforcement carveout to the discretionary function exception, thus expanding the scope of what a plaintiff can sue for under the FTCA. To counteract this, the Eleventh Circuit permits the United States to assert a Supremacy Clause defense, which asks whether the challenged conduct bears “some nexus with furthering federal policy.”

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded for reexamination of the issue. The Supreme Court held that under the plain meaning of the FTCA, the law enforcement carveout under the intentional tort exception does not extend to the discretionary function exception. Further, there is no Supremacy Clause defense. The FTCA does not mention the Supremacy Clause, but rather, asks whether, after resolving the applicability of any exceptions, the challenged conduct would be actionable under the relevant state law.

Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion on behalf of a unanimous Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Jackson.