U.S. Supreme Court Limits Law Enforcement Immunity Under Federal Tort Claims Act

In a recent unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court removed a specific legal protection previously available to law enforcement officers in lawsuits filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

The case, Martin v. United States, 605 U.S. 395, (decided June 12, 2025), involved law enforcement agents who raided the wrong house after being misdirected by a GPS device. The homeowners sued the federal government for personal injury and property damage.

The FTCA allows citizens to sue the government for the negligent actions of federal employees, essentially putting these government employees in the same position as “private individuals under like circumstances” regarding liability. Previously, lower courts had applied the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause to limit the government’s liability, reasoning that an officer could not be held liable under state tort law if their actions were related to “furthering federal policy.”

The Supreme Court rejected this application in Martin, ruling that the plain language of the FTCA does not allow officers to use their status as government employees as a shield from liability that a private citizen would otherwise face. In other words, an officer will not be protected from liability otherwise held against a “private individual under like circumstances” simply because he or she were acting as a government employee.

Although this specific defense is now unavailable, the Court noted that other defenses under the FTCA remain viable shields against tort liability. The FTCA outlines 13 exceptions to liability – including the “discretionary function” exception which protects federal employees when their actions involve policy decisions, even if those decisions are erroneous. The Supreme Court remanded the Martin case back to a lower court to determine if the specific decisions leading up to the wrong-address raid could be protected by any remaining exceptions, including a discretionary function defense.

The full discussion is available at: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/605us2r44_4f57.pdf