The federal court system is often criticized for judges who are perceived to be making law rather than interpreting and applying it as written. A new case that may reach the Supreme Court highlights this issue.
A bipartisan group of congresspeople, including Senators Rand Paul, Ron Wyden, and Cynthia Lummis, along with Representatives Thomas Massie, Nikema Williams, Harriet Hageman, and Dan Bishop, is urging the Supreme Court to take up a case involving a family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI and then denied the right to sue for damages.
The family’s denial to sue was based on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that the congresspeople argue misinterpreted the relevant law, preventing the plaintiff, Curtrina Martin, from seeking justice.
The case stems from a 2017 incident where Martin and her fiancé were subjected to a traumatic FBI raid in their home, even though the suspect they were looking for did not reside there. Despite this, the 11th Circuit granted immunity to the SWAT raid leader and blocked Martin’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The congresspeople point out the irony that the FTCA was amended in the 1970s to allow suits against the federal government for intentional torts committed by law enforcement, inspired by similar wrong-house raids in 1973.
The parallels between Martin’s case and past incidents underscore the need for accountability in law enforcement actions. The congresspeople argue that the 11th Circuit’s decision goes against the intent of the law and deprives victims of redress for government misconduct.
While the debate over law enforcement accountability continues, Martin’s case highlights the importance of upholding legislative solutions and ensuring that victims of government abuse can seek justice.
*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misnamed a congressperson.
Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
