In 2017. Trina Martin, her son Gabe, who was seven at the time, and her partner Troy Cliatt, had that sense of security shattered by a flash bomb grenade that signaled the start of an FBI raid. It was like two guns put into my face at like one time. [00:00:16] So I was just really just nervous. That was my main focus. Like, I didn't want to get killed. You know, my safety came first at that moment. I remember being on the floor, and I'm looking up to see what's going on, and I see a bunch of, like, automatic weapons pointed at me, and I'm like, oh, man. [00:00:37] Every year there are literally hundreds of cases involving raids on homes that were mistaken to be the homes that were meant to be targeted in said raids. They're called wrong home or wrong house raids. And the United States Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of a family, [00:00:56] the very family you just heard from who is seeking to sue the federal government over a wrong House raid that had been carried out by the FBI back in 2017. Now, who would have thought that the biggest blow to federal law enforcement [00:01:13] immunity would come from a conservative Supreme Court in a unanimous decision? I'm not kidding. This was one of the most shocking decisions I've seen in the Supreme Court. So at the center of this case was Trina Martin and her then boyfriend, toy, client. [00:01:31] You just heard from him in that video. Now, Martin's home in Atlanta was wrongfully raided by the FBI back in 2017. And it turns out that it was actually Martin's neighbor who was suspected of engaging in gang activity. And that was supposed to be the FBI's target. [00:01:48] Now, Martin's son, who you also saw in that video, was just seven years old at the time. And, he had the pleasure of witnessing federal agents pointing guns at his own mother when he was just seven years old, and that's after busting into the house. [00:02:05] Now, obviously, that's traumatizing for a child. This family was victimized, and these victims incurred damages to their home as a result of the raid. At the time, they claimed $5,000 in damages due to a burnt carpet, broken doors and fractured railings. [00:02:22] Agents quickly acknowledged, by the way, that they had stormed the wrong address due to a faulty GPS direction, but the FBI refused, refused to provide any restitution. Lower courts later tossed out the family's liability claims, citing [00:02:39] sweeping protections under federal law. Now, when law enforcement in this case the FBI, has broad immunity, don't you think that maybe that doesn't incentivize them to be extra cautious to ensure that they've got the right house [00:02:58] when they do these raids, when you know you have that immunity, you're just not going to be as cautious. And I think that's what's happening here. Plus, these victims deserve restitution. And the fact that the FBI wasn't even willing to pay them $5,000 [00:03:13] is insanely gross. But that's what we're dealing with here. So two lower courts actually tossed out Martin's lawsuit, but she took it all the way to the Supreme Court. And that brings us to today. So in a unanimous decision, the High Court said the Martin case could move forward. [00:03:32] But they did stop short of rendering judgment on whether the FBI could successfully invoke other legal defenses related to the discretionary nature of its job. So Neil Gorsuch, who is very much a conservative Supreme Court justice, [00:03:49] wrote the deciding opinion. I want to just read a quick excerpt from what he wrote. He says if federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants. May the homeowners sue the government for damages. [00:04:06] The answer is not as obvious as it might be. So the argument here is, well, look, you want to provide like federal agents or law enforcement, enough immunity so they're able to do their job without fear of a lawsuit. [00:04:23] But in in writing his decision, Gorsuch also made clear that this lawsuit absolutely should move forward, given the recklessness that was demonstrated by the FBI. I mean, just the unwillingness to double check to ensure that they had the right House. [00:04:39] Gorsuch confirmed that Congress has unambiguously opened the door to potential liability when an officer commits an assault battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, or abuse of process. He remanded the case to a lower court for further consideration as to whether [00:05:00] the FBI could invoke other protections. So this case isn't over yet. It's not a full blown victory for Martin. And, you know, her former boyfriend and her son. However, what this does do is set precedent for lawsuits [00:05:17] against law enforcement in this case, federal law enforcement, the FBI. And that is a good precedent to set. This is a big deal. And so it chips away at law enforcement immunity. Obviously, there needs to be a balance to ensure that it doesn't impede law [00:05:33] enforcement's ability to do their jobs. But clearly the immunity is too broad and protects really bad behavior that victimizes all sorts of innocent people across this country on a regular basis. Now, the Trump administration, by the way, had argued that the Martin case [00:05:48] should be thrown out. So that's what the Trump administration believed. But luckily the Supreme Court disagreed with that. They claimed that officers should be able to exercise discretion in the course of their duties without worrying about lawsuits. [00:06:04] I disagree, I'm glad the Supreme Court disagrees. ABC news also reports that the Trump Justice Department has put a freeze on federal civil rights investigations into cops and canceled consent decrees with police departments. Local police departments that were found. [00:06:21] There was evidence that they had engaged in a pattern of misconduct. And in a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to liberal Supreme Court justices, of course, urged the lower court in the Martin case to be critical of the administration's [00:06:40] assertions of immunity for officers discretionary actions in the line of duty. So this is a super fascinating case. I'm happy with the way the Supreme Court ruled in this case. We'll see how it plays out as it's sent back to the lower courts. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. [00:06:56] Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.