Latest news with #SupremacyClause
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
In NCLA Amicus Win, Supreme Court Revives Innocent Family's Suit over FBI's Wrong-House Raid
Curtrina Martin, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Washington, DC, June 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of Martin v. United States, an Atlanta family's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the government for a wrong-house raid in 2017. FBI agents invaded the home of Trina Martin and her family, shackling her partner on the floor and holding a half-naked Ms. Martin at gunpoint, while she expressed concern for her seven-year-old son's safety elsewhere in the house. One big problem: the FBI SWAT team had knocked down the door of the wrong home, on the wrong street, because the agent in charge had failed to verify its clearly marked address. The Justices remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration. As NCLA's amicus curiae brief urged, the Eleventh Circuit should ultimately rule on remand that the FTCA does not shield the government from liability when federal law enforcement officers raid the wrong house. Ms. Martin and her family filed FTCA claims against the government for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, as well as Fourth Amendment claims against the individual FBI agents. The Eleventh Circuit below upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, concluding that the agents' actions violated no 'clearly established' law. It ruled that the family suffered harm resulting from an agent's 'discretionary act' (i.e., failing to check the house address), warranting total governmental immunity and no path to relief for the Martin family. The Eleventh Circuit also determined that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution could shield the FBI and its agents from FTCA suits. NCLA's amicus brief forcefully argued that the Eleventh Circuit's mode of inquiry—which departed from the analytical process employed by all sister circuits—was inconsistent with the language and intent of the FTCA. Congress amended the FTCA in 1974 expressly to ensure that innocent people subjected to wrong-house raids and similar abuses by federal law enforcement officers would have a cause of action to sue. By expanding the FTCA's discretionary-function exception to encompass wrong-house raids such as this one, the Eleventh Circuit's decision effectively nullified the 1974 law. As Justice Sotomayor underscored in her concurrence (joined by Justice Jackson), 'Courts … should not ignore the existence of the [1974 amendment], or the factual context that inspired its passage, when construing the discretionary-function exception. … [A]ny interpretation should allow for liability in the very cases Congress amended the FTCA to remedy.' Today's Supreme Court ruling does not decide whether the 'discretionary function' exception applies in this case, an issue that the Court ordered the Eleventh Circuit to resolve, but the Justices found that the Supremacy Clause is not a defense the government may invoke in FTCA lawsuits. Justice Gorsuch explained in his opinion for the Court: 'The FTCA is the 'supreme' federal law addressing the United States' liability for torts committed by its agents. It supplies the 'exclusive remedy' for damages claims arising out of federal employees' official conduct.' NCLA released the following statements: 'The Supreme Court rightly held that innocent civilians should not be stripped of any meaningful remedy when they suffer abuse at the hands of federal law enforcement. The Martin family deserves their day in court. On remand, NCLA trusts that the Eleventh Circuit will carefully evaluate what qualifies as 'reasonable' law enforcement—and recognize that a trained FBI agent who fails to check a clearly marked house number before commencing a raid because 'it was dark outside' does not qualify.'— Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'Law enforcement officers should not be able to evade accountability for entering the wrong house and terrorizing an innocent family in the middle of the night when Congress intentionally provided for redress in cases against the federal government in such circumstances. Thankfully, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong to preclude relief in this case and others like it.'— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'All too often, court-created doctrines are used to reduce the government's liability to people whose civil liberties it has violated. Congratulations to our friends at the Institute for Justice for convincing the Supreme Court to clip the wings of such a doctrine in this case—at least where Congress had explicitly created a cause of action to sue.'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court faces backlash after siding with controversial pipeline project: 'Inconsistent with state law'
Prompting sharp criticism, a federal court of appeals has sided with a pipeline company over local officials and residents, striking down ordinances aimed at regulating pipelines within their communities, the Gazette reported. Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking to build a pipeline that would transport sequestered carbon dioxide across five states, including Iowa. In response to Summit's plan, two Iowa counties, Shelby and Story, passed laws that put restrictions on pipeline construction within their borders, according to the appeals court decision. Summit Carbon Solutions then sued the two counties, arguing that both federal and state law preempted local governments' ability to regulate pipeline construction in their own backyards. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a federal law preempts any state law that is in conflict with it. Similarly, under Iowa state law, a law passed by the Iowa general assembly takes precedence over any local law. In 2023, a federal district court sided with Summit, ruling that the federal Pipeline Safety Act and Iowa state law both superseded the county ordinances, effectively striking them down. Shelby and Story counties then appealed the decision, taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On June 5, a three-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit released its opinion upholding the lower court ruling. "The PSA preempts the Shelby and Story ordinances' setback, emergency response, and abandonment provisions," the court found, referring to the federal Pipeline Safety Act. According to the Gazette, the court also found that the ordinances "would prohibit a pipeline company from building in a certain location, even if the (Iowa Utilities Commission) permits construction there. That possibility makes the pipeline company permitting requirements inconsistent with state law and thus preempted." Unless the Iowa counties appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, their pipeline regulations will remain struck down. This case was significant because it tested the ability of local residents and their representatives in municipal government to challenge the presence of massive, dangerous pipelines passing through their communities. Do you think fracking should be illegal in America? Yes — everywhere Yes — in most areas In some areas No Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Summit Carbon Solutions' plan involved building a 2,500-mile pipeline that would transport carbon captured from ethanol plants across five different states all the way to North Dakota, where it would be pumped underground, according to the Gazette. Over the course of those 2,500 miles, about the distance from San Francisco to New York City, the pipeline would pass through countless local communities. These communities are the ones who bear the brunt of such pipeline projects: the risks to human health, the property damage, the environmental degradation, and the ever-present-danger of a pipeline disaster. And yet, as the appeals court decision showed, any effort by residents and municipal governments to use local law to regulate the presence of pipelines in their communities will likely be challenged and potentially struck down. After the Eighth Circuit released its decision, Summit applauded the ruling, saying it "supports a consistent, lawful permitting process for critical infrastructure projects like ours," according to the Gazette. While the appellate ruling has frustrated local efforts to have a say in whether and how pipelines pass through their communities, the decision explicitly did not block every available avenue. "While we had hoped for a more decisive ruling affirming local control, the Court clearly acknowledged that counties can consider safety and implement zoning ordinances," said Emma Schmit, a member of Pipeline Fighters, a group opposed to the project, in a press release. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses
NEW YORK − The Trump administration on June 12 sued New York state for its law restricting federal immigration enforcement inside state courthouses. The lawsuit challenges a New York state law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at or near New York courthouses. The complaint, filed in federal court in Albany, New York, alleges the law frustrates federal immigration enforcement at a venue - state courthouses - where authorities can safely make arrests. U.S. Justice Department lawyers said New York's law and policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration officers violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Albany comes after the administration has increased immigration enforcement at workplaces and while people appeared for immigration court hearings. People have protested against the federal actions in cities across the country. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed so-called 'sanctuary city policies' for violence seen in California. Sanctuary policies generally refers to those limiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has also sued four New Jersey cities for their laws. New York state had similar policies preventing agents from apprehending migrants, Bondi said in a statement. 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law,' she said. Justice Department lawyers challenged the 2020 state law preventing federal officials from arresting people for civil immigration violations at state courthouses without a signed judicial warrant. New York's 2020 law doesn't apply to federal courthouses or immigration court, according to the legislation's author, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who called the lawsuit 'baseless and frivolous." The Justice Department said in a news release that enforcement at courthouses reduces risk of people fleeing or dangerous situations, especially since there is enhanced screening inside court buildings. State officials said federal agents entering local courthouses make communities unsafe by preventing people from accessing the judicial system. The law ensures New Yorkers can pursue justice without fear, Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Letitia James, said in a statement. 'Due process means nothing if people are too afraid to appear in court,' he said. James would defend the law and 'all of New York's laws, just as she will continue to defend the rights and dignity of all who call New York home,' Burgan said. Hoylman-Sigal, who authored the law, said the lawsuit was part of the administration's 'ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York.' To avoid conflicting with federal law or federal immigration authority, the law doesn't apply to federal courts or immigration courts, he said in a statement. Meanwhile, it allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people in local courthouses when they have 'actual, valid judicial warrants.' 'At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process,' he said. A contentious issue has been federal agents targeting people in 'sensitive" areas. Prior Department of Homeland Security guidelines banned enforcement in areas such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. When President Donald Trump took office in January, DHS overturned the longstanding policy to give agents discretion on such actions. The administration enacted another policy permitting enforcement at or near courthouses. Justice Department lawyers also challenged two New York executive orders restricting civil immigration arrests at state facilities, and a separate policy preventing state employees from sharing information to federal officers related to civil immigration enforcement. 'Through these enactments, New York obstructs federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens,' the complaint said. The same day as the lawsuit, Gov. Kathy Hochul was one of three Democratic governors testifying before Congress about "sanctuary" policies and immigration enforcement. Hochul said her state has cooperated with ICE since she's taken office. "But we have to draw a line somewhere,' Hochul said. 'New York cannot deputize our state officers to enforce civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.' The administration's attack on the 2020 law would turn courthouses 'into traps,' Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. It would further force immigrant communities into the shadows. An initial conference date for the lawsuit was scheduled for Sept. 10, court records showed. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courts
USA Today
13-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses
'Afraid' for court: Trump DOJ sues NY over immigration enforcement in state courthouses Show Caption Hide Caption Three Democratic governors testify in House hearing over immigration New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, testify on Capitol Hill over immigration policies. NEW YORK − The Trump administration on June 12 sued New York state for its law restricting federal immigration enforcement inside state courthouses. The lawsuit challenges a New York state law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at or near New York courthouses. The complaint, filed in federal court in Albany, New York, alleges the law frustrates federal immigration enforcement at a venue - state courthouses - where authorities can safely make arrests. U.S. Justice Department lawyers said New York's law and policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration officers violated the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Albany comes after the administration has increased immigration enforcement at workplaces and while people appeared for immigration court hearings. People have protested against the federal actions in cities across the country. Attorney General Pam Bondi blamed so-called 'sanctuary city policies' for violence seen in California. Sanctuary policies generally refers to those limiting local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The Justice Department has also sued four New Jersey cities for their laws. New York state had similar policies preventing agents from apprehending migrants, Bondi said in a statement. 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law,' she said. Justice Department lawyers challenged the 2020 state law preventing federal officials from arresting people for civil immigration violations at state courthouses without a signed judicial warrant. New York's 2020 law doesn't apply to federal courthouses or immigration court, according to the legislation's author, state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat who called the lawsuit 'baseless and frivolous." The Justice Department said in a news release that enforcement at courthouses reduces risk of people fleeing or dangerous situations, especially since there is enhanced screening inside court buildings. 'Ongoing assault' on rule of law in NY, state officials say State officials said federal agents entering local courthouses make communities unsafe by preventing people from accessing the judicial system. The law ensures New Yorkers can pursue justice without fear, Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Letitia James, said in a statement. 'Due process means nothing if people are too afraid to appear in court,' he said. James would defend the law and 'all of New York's laws, just as she will continue to defend the rights and dignity of all who call New York home,' Burgan said. Hoylman-Sigal, who authored the law, said the lawsuit was part of the administration's 'ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York.' To avoid conflicting with federal law or federal immigration authority, the law doesn't apply to federal courts or immigration courts, he said in a statement. Meanwhile, it allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people in local courthouses when they have 'actual, valid judicial warrants.' 'At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process,' he said. 'Sensitive' areas targets of immigration enforcement A contentious issue has been federal agents targeting people in 'sensitive" areas. Prior Department of Homeland Security guidelines banned enforcement in areas such as schools, places of worship and hospitals. When President Donald Trump took office in January, DHS overturned the longstanding policy to give agents discretion on such actions. The administration enacted another policy permitting enforcement at or near courthouses. Justice Department lawyers also challenged two New York executive orders restricting civil immigration arrests at state facilities, and a separate policy preventing state employees from sharing information to federal officers related to civil immigration enforcement. 'Through these enactments, New York obstructs federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens,' the complaint said. The same day as the lawsuit, Gov. Kathy Hochul was one of three Democratic governors testifying before Congress about "sanctuary" policies and immigration enforcement. Hochul said her state has cooperated with ICE since she's taken office. "But we have to draw a line somewhere,' Hochul said. 'New York cannot deputize our state officers to enforce civil immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa.' The administration's attack on the 2020 law would turn courthouses 'into traps,' Donna Liberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. It would further force immigrant communities into the shadows. An initial conference date for the lawsuit was scheduled for Sept. 10, court records showed. Contributing: Bart Jansen, USA TODAY Eduardo Cuevas is based in New York City. Reach him by email at emcuevas1@ or on Signal at emcuevas.01.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit.
It's been almost eight years since an FBI SWAT team arrived at Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt's home, detonated a flash grenade inside, ripped the door off, and stormed into the couple's bedroom with guns drawn. Agents handcuffed Cliatt at gunpoint, and Martin, who had tried to barricade herself inside of her closet, says she fell on a rack amid the mayhem. But law enforcement would not find who they were looking for there, because that suspect, Joseph Riley, lived in a nearby house on a different street. The issue is still a relevant one for Martin and Cliatt, along with Martin's son, Gabe—who was 7 years old at the time of the raid—as the group has fought for years, unsuccessfully, for the right to sue the government over the break-in. The Supreme Court on Thursday resurrected that lawsuit, unanimously ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had settled on a faulty analysis when it barred Martin and Cliatt from suing in April 2024. But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be." The issue before the Court did not pertain to immunity for any individual law enforcement agent, whom the 11th Circuit shielded from liability in its decision last year. The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the lawsuit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment. There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims—a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso—essentially an exception to the exception—that permits claims to get around that carve-out when the misconduct in question is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids. The 11th Circuit accordingly observed that the proviso would allow Martin and Cliatt's intentional tort claims to survive the exception. The court killed those claims anyway. It cited the Supremacy Clause, which the judges said protected the government from liability if its employees' actions had "some nexus with furthering federal policy and [could] reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Not so, said the Supreme Court. Somewhat surprisingly, that put it in agreement with the government—which, prior to oral arguments, conceded the 11th Circuit's conclusion there was incorrect, and that it did not care to defend it. "We find the government's concession commendable and correct," writes Gorsuch. "The FTCA does not permit the Eleventh Circuit's Supremacy Clause defense." Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing—distinctive under the law from intentional torts—writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said. But the 11th Circuit took its discretionary analysis a step further, ruling that, for acts of wrongdoing that have intentionality, the law enforcement proviso trumps the discretionary exception outright. The justices rejected that. "The law enforcement proviso…overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection," the Court said, "not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions." So where does that leave Martin and Cliatt? "On remand, the 11th Circuit will need to decide whether raiding the wrong house is a 'discretionary function,'" says Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented the pair. Jaicomo was hoping the Court would address that very confusion. The plaintiffs "call on us to determine whether and under what circumstances the discretionary-function exception bars suits for wrong-house raids and similar misconduct," writes Gorsuch. "Unless we take up that further question, they worry, the Eleventh Circuit on remand may take too broad a view of the exception and dismiss their claims again. After all, the plaintiffs observe, in the past that court has suggested that the discretionary-function exception bars any claim 'unless a source of federal law "specifically prescribes" a course of conduct' and thus deprives an official of all discretion." The Supreme Court, however, ultimately opted for a narrow approach, though the justices acknowledged "that important questions surround whether and under what circumstances that exception may ever foreclose a suit like this one." In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said there are no such circumstances when considering the fact pattern presented in Martin and Cliatt's suit. "Like driving, executing a warrant always involves some measure of discretion," she wrote. "Yet it is hard to see how Guerra's conduct in this case, including his allegedly negligent choice to use his personal GPS and his failure to check the street sign or house number on the mailbox before breaking down Martin's door and terrorizing the home's occupants, involved the kind of policy judgments that the discretionary-function exception was designed to protect." That would seem like the right conclusion, particularly when considering the genesis of that law enforcement proviso, which Congress enacted to give recourse to victims who suffered at the hands of near-identical misconduct. Those lawmakers clearly did not think the discretionary exception would doom their claims. That the law was meant to protect people like Martin, Cliatt, and Martin's son is why a bipartisan group of lawmakers—including Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Ron Wyden (D–Ore.), and Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), along with Reps. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), Nikema Williams (D–Ga.), and Harriet Hageman (R–Wyo.)—had urged the Court to take up their case. Sotomayor's description of Guerra's negligence is also salient and was the subject of one of the more interesting exchanges when the Supreme Court heard the case. Arguing for the Justice Department, Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general, said it was too much for Martin and Cliatt to expect "that the officer should have checked the house number on the mailbox." "Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door," Gorsuch responded. Liu countered that such a decision "is filled with policy tradeoffs." "Really?" Gorsuch replied. The post The FBI Raided This Innocent Georgia Family's Home. The Supreme Court Just Revived Their Lawsuit. appeared first on
