Martin v. United States
Holding
The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the law enforcement proviso in Section 2680(h) of the act overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout Section 2680.
Judgment
Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Neil Gorsuch on Jun 12, 2025. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Jackson.
Jul 18, 2024Application (24A74) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 28, 2024 to October 27, 2024, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Jul 22, 2024Application (24A74) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 27, 2024.
Sep 27, 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 31, 2024)Oct 9, 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 31, 2024 to December 2, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.Oct 11, 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 2, 2024.
Oct 31, 2024Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.Oct 31, 2024Brief amicus curiae of Professor Gregory C. Sisk filed.Nov 25, 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 2, 2024 to December 6, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.Nov 26, 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 6, 2024.
Dec 6, 2024Brief of respondents United States, et al. in opposition filed.Dec 20, 2024Reply of petitioners Curtrina Martin, et al. filed. (Distributed)Dec 24, 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
Jan 13, 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025.
Jan 21, 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025.
Jan 27, 2025Petition GRANTED limited to the following questions: 1) Whether the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law. 2) Whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception. Petitioners’ brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Friday, March 7, 2025. Respondents' brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Tuesday, April 1, 2025. The reply brief is to be received by the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025.
Jan 28, 2025Christopher Mills, Esquire, of Charleston, South Carolina, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below as to the first question identified in the order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Feb 24, 2025SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 29, 2025.
Feb 28, 2025Record requested from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 7, 2025Record received from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The record is electronic and is available on PACER.
Mar 7, 2025Brief of petitioners Curtrina Martin, et al. filed.Mar 7, 2025Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Mar 13, 2025Sealed material received from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and available with the Clerk (one envelope). The remainder of the record is electronic and is available on PACER.
Mar 14, 2025Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen filed.Mar 14, 2025Brief amicus curiae of North Central Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association filed.Mar 14, 2025Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.Mar 14, 2025Brief amicus curiae of Professor Gregory C. Sisk filed. (Distributed)Mar 14, 2025Brief amici curiae of Public Accountability, et al. filed.Mar 14, 2025Amicus brief of New Civil Liberties Alliance not accepted for filing. (March 18, 2025)
Mar 14, 2025Brief amicus curiae of New Civil Liberties Alliance filed. (Distributed)Mar 14, 2025Brief amici curiae of America's Future, et al. filed.Mar 14, 2025Brief amici curiae of National Police Accountability Project, et al. filed.Mar 14, 2025Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.Mar 19, 2025CIRCULATED
Mar 31, 2025Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed)Apr 1, 2025Brief of respondents United States, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 8, 2025Motion for divided argument filed the Solicitor General.Apr 17, 2025Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED.
Apr 22, 2025Reply of petitioners Curtrina Martin, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 29, 2025Argued. For petitioners: Patrick M. Jaicomo, Arlington, Va. For respondents: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment
below on Question 1: Christopher E. Mills, Charleston, S. C.
Jun 12, 2025Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Jackson, J., joined.
Jul 14, 2025Judgment Issued.Aug 5, 2025Record returned to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Recommended Citation: Martin v. United States, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/martin-v-united-states-2/