The question
Whether the law enforcement proviso in 28 U.S.C. 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection or also overrides the discretionary-function exception and other exceptions throughout section 2680.
Martin v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment and remanded. It held that the law enforcement proviso in 28 U.S.C. 2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception within that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or any other exception elsewhere in section 2680. The Court reasoned that the text and structure of section 2680 show the proviso modifies only the subsection in which it appears, consistent with the principle that provisos generally reach only the provisions where they sit.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
The opinion for a unanimous Court held that the law enforcement proviso in section 2680(h) applies only to the intentional-tort exception in that subsection. The proviso appears within the same subsection and sentence as the intentional-tort exception, and provisos generally modify only the provisions in which they appear. Section 2680 contains 13 discrete exceptions, each a structurally distinct sentence, and the proviso addresses the same subject matter as subsection (h) while other exceptions cover different topics. The proviso's definition of investigative or law enforcement officer is expressly limited to that subsection. The opinion rejected the argument that the proviso reaches all exceptions and held that legislative history cannot displace what the statutory text directs.
Concurring
Sotomayor, joined by Jackson
Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion joined by Jackson. The syllabus records that the concurrence was filed but does not state its reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The law enforcement proviso in 28 U.S.C. 2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout section 2680.
Source: syllabus, Held
Section 2680 contains 13 discrete exceptions, each of which forms a separate sentence and operates as a structurally distinct provision.
Source: syllabus, Held
The proviso's definitional sentence expressly limits the definition of investigative or law enforcement officer to subsection (h).
Source: syllabus, Held
Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, and Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion in which Jackson joined.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The FBI raided the wrong house in suburban Atlanta and the petitioners sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking damages.
Source: syllabus, Held