Supreme Court poised to rule narrowly in police wrong-house raid case
Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court appears poised to rule narrowly in a closely watched dispute over when federal law enforcement can be held liable for mistakes that harm innocent victims.
Justices heard arguments on Tuesday in a case from Atlanta involving a 2017 pre-dawn FBI raid of the wrong house that traumatized a family and left thousands of dollars of damage.
Lower courts tossed out the victims’ claims for compensation because of sweeping legal immunity for government officials.
Much of the debate, while highly technical, focused on an exception to the immunity clause that Congress added to the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1974.
“If you really, really meant to drop the pizza off at the right address, it doesn’t matter. You still need to give a refund if you drop it off at the wrong address,” argued Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney representing the family.
A Trump administration attorney insisted officers exercising discretion in performance of their duties should not be subjected to lawsuits and second-guessed by courts.
“The officers here made a reasonable mistake,” said Frederick Liu, an assistant solicitor general.
Several justices did not appear to be buying the argument.
“That is so ridiculous,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “Congress is … providing a remedy to people who have been wrongfully raided, and you’re now saying, ‘No, they really didn’t want to protect them fully.'”
Most law enforcement agencies don’t keep track of wrong-house raids or publicly report data, according to legal experts. Civil rights advocates estimate that are hundreds of cases of wrong-house raids nationwide each year, and most victims are not compensated for the physical or emotional harm that often results from them.
When Liu argued the FBI agents in the case did not violate any government policy despite the mistake, Justice Neil Gorsuch shot back incredulously.
“No policy says, ‘Don’t break down the wrong door? Don’t traumatize the occupants’? Really?” Gorsuch asked Liu.
“It’s the United States’ policy to execute the warrants at the right house,” Liu replied.
“I should hope so,” Gorsuch responded.
Despite sympathy for the plaintiffs, many of the justices appeared wary of a broad ruling that might open the floodgates to litigation against the government.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is the justice most often in the majority, suggested the Supreme Court is likely to provide a limited decision and return the case to lower courts for further consideration.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
(WASHINGTON) — The deadline has quietly passed on Attorney General Pam Bondi delivering a report to President Donald Trump on whether any leftover Biden administration policies infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms. It came just days after Democratic leaders sent her a letter suggesting there is “plainly no need for any new plan of action.”
Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 7 after making campaign promises to gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) that “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.”
The president instructed Bondi to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies” and determine if any of them violate the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation,” Trump’s executive order reads. “Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”
The 30-day mark for Bondi to report back to Trump through his domestic policy director would have been this past Sunday.
Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law, told ABC News the broadly written executive order “signals to me that this isn’t a top priority” for the Trump administration.
“Obviously, if there were things that were on the administration’s radar as possibly violating the Second Amendment or violating the rights of gun owners in some way, they could have started to roll those back right away and wouldn’t have needed to take this intermediate step of issuing a directive to the Attorney General to figure out what those were,” Willinger said. “That suggests that there’s nothing out there that the administration viewed as so pressing that they have to get rid of it right away.”
‘Perfectly consistent with the 2nd Amendment’
After Trump signed the executive order, NRA Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin released a statement praising the president’s move.
“Promises made to law-abiding gun owners are being kept by President Donald J. Trump,” Hamlin said. “NRA members were instrumental, turning out in record numbers to secure his victory, and he is proving worthy of their votes, faith and confidence in his first days in office.”
John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, also released a statement, saying, “After a long four years, law-abiding gun owners no longer have to worry about being the target of an anti-gun radical administration. NRA looks forward to the advances and restoration of our rights that will come from President Trump’s respect for the Constitution.”
It is unclear whether or not Bondi met the deadline on delivering the report — nothing had been publicly released as of Wednesday. When ABC News asked this week about the Bondi’s pending plan of action, Department of Justice officials said they would check but had no immediate information on the report’s status. The White House also did not respond to ABC News’ inquiry about Bondi’s pending report.
Earlier this month, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Georgia, ranking member of the House subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, sent Bondi a letter.
“We are determined to protect our communities against lethal gun crime in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” they wrote.
The letter said that if Bondi carried out her examination “objectively and in good faith” she’ll find that actions taken by the previous administration to fight gun violence are “perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.”
“There is plainly no need for any new plan of action to, in the words of the executive order, ‘protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,'” the letter said.
In his executive order, Trump instructed Bondi that in addition to reviewing all presidential actions taken on gun control from January 2021 to January 2025, he wanted her to review rules about firearms and federal firearm licensing implemented by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
Trump specifically asked Bondi to review the ATF’s “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” — also called the “zero tolerance policy” — implemented in 2021 under Biden and former Attorney General Merrick Garland to identify federal firearms dealers who violate the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Under the policy, firearms dealers had their licenses revoked for willfully transferring firearms to prohibited people, failing to conduct the required background checks, falsifying records and failing to respond to a gun trace request. The policy prompted several lawsuits from gun dealers who argued their licenses were revoked over minor clerical errors.
Raskin and McBath claimed that in the three years since the policy was implemented, about 0.3% of the nation’s roughly 130,000 federal gun dealers had their licenses revoked.
“Through this policy, ATF has enforced the Gun Control Act as passed by Congress and had revoked the licenses of a tiny fraction of gun dealers who willfully violated the law,” Raskin and McBath said in their letter to Bondi. “The ATF’s enhanced regulatory policy has not prevented a single American who may lawfully possess a firearm from exercising his or her Second Amendment rights.”
The ATF reported that in fiscal year 2023, the agency found 1,531 violations after conducting 8,689 firearm compliance inspections. The inspections, according to the ATF, prompted 667 warning letters and 170 revocations.
“Law-abiding gun dealers remain in business throughout the country. In fact, there remain more gun dealers than there are locations of Starbucks, McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Burger King, Subway, and Chick-fil-A combined,” Raskin and McBath said in their letter.
The Democratic lawmakers asked Bondi to respond to their letter by the end of the business day on Monday, explaining what standards she will use to determine if policies taken by the Biden administration violate the Second Amendment and how she will ensure her plan of action “does not increase the risk of violent crime, including gun deaths.”
Majority of Americans favor stronger gun laws
A Pew Research Center poll released in July 2024 found that 61% of respondents agreed that it is too easy to legally obtain a gun and 58% favored stricter gun laws.
“We know that the vast majority of Americans — including gun owners and Trump voters — support basic safety laws that crack down on crime and keep all communities safe. These policies are in no way inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” Kris Brown, president of the gun-safety advocacy group Brady United, said in a statement after Trump signed the executive order.
Brown noted that policies under Biden included expanding background checks for gun buyers and “cracking down on rogue gun traffickers.”
“They must be continued if this President actually wants to achieve any of his campaign promises around reducing crime, cracking down on drug traffickers, and reducing the flow of trafficked weapons across the southern border,” Brown said.
In the aftermath of the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, that claimed the lives of 19 children and two teachers, Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major piece of federal gun reform to clear both chambers in 30 years.
The law enhanced background checks for gun buyers under the age of 21 by giving authorities up to 10 business days to review the juvenile and mental health records of young gun purchasers, and made it unlawful for someone to purchase a gun for someone who would fail a background check. This legislation closed the so-called “boyfriend loophole” preventing individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing a gun.
The law included $750 million to help states implement “red flag” laws to remove firearms from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, as well as other violence prevention programs. It also provided funding for a variety of programs aimed at shoring up the nation’s mental health apparatus and securing schools.
Willinger told ABC News that “short of asking Congress to appeal it,” there is little the Trump administration can do about the law.
“It’s possible that the administration could do stuff to hold up that money,” Willinger said. “I don’t know what wiggle room they have to do that.”
(WASHINGTON) — Nearly 2,000 scientists, engineers and researchers penned an open letter this week to President Donald Trump’s administration, calling for a stop to its “assault” on science.
The letter was signed by elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a congressional chartered organization that provides independent analysis and helps inform public policy decisions.
The group made clear the signatories are expressing their own views and not those of the National Academies or their home institutions.
“We are speaking out as individuals. We see real danger in this moment,” the letter said, in part. “We hold diverse political beliefs, but we are united as researchers in wanting to protect independent scientific inquiry. We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.”
“We call on the administration to cease its wholesale assault on U.S. science, and we urge the public to join this call,” the letter continued.
The group called out the Trump administration for actions including the ending funding for research, firing scientists and removing public access to data.
Recently, several active research grants related to studies involving LGBTQ+ issues, as well as gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion, were canceled at the National Institutes of Health. According to termination letters sent to researchers at various universities that were reviewed by ABC News, the projects were canceled because they did not serve the “priorities” of the current administration.
Additionally, earlier this year staff were laid off across the Department of Health and Human Services as part of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency effort to shrink the size of the federal government.
Earlier this month, HHS also appeared to have taken down a webpage from the Office of the Surgeon General that included an advisory on gun violence. In a statement to ABC News, the HHS said that the department “and the Office of the Surgeon General are complying with President Trump’s Executive Order on Protecting Second Amendment Rights.”
The White House did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment on the letter.
“If our country’s research enterprise is dismantled, we will lose our scientific edge,” the letter goes on. “Other countries will lead the development of novel disease treatments, clean energy sources, and the new technologies of the future. Their populations will be healthier, and their economies will surpass us in business, defense, intelligence gathering, and monitoring our planet’s health. The damage to our nation’s scientific enterprise could take decades to reverse.”
The letter comes as layoffs begin at HHS, including at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration.
Up to 10,000 people are expected to lose their jobs in this round of layoffs, an amount that could significantly alter the department’s roles and abilities. That’s in addition to the nearly 10,000 who have already left the agency in the last few months through buyout offers or early retirements.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie, Cheyenne Haslett and Etic Strauss contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday called on the Senate to keep the United States’ tariffs on Canada in place — hours before Democrats in the upper chamber could potentially force a vote aimed at blocking the president from imposing tariffs on the ally country.
Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner are leading the effort to end the international emergency — which Kaine has called a “made up emergency” — that Trump has declared against Canada, thereby shunting his administration’s authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. Trump has derived his authority to impose tariffs by declaring a national emergency caused by the flow of fentanyl and undocumented migration from Canada, Mexico and China. But Democrats are now challenging that emergency status.
“President Trump is saying that there is an emergency with Canada. Canada is a friend not an adversary. Canada is a sovereign nation not a 51st state,” Kaine said on Tuesday.
It comes just one day before Trump’s tariffs on Canada are expected to go into effect as part of “Liberation Day” — the president’s plans to roll out sweeping tariffs that he has said will impact “all countries.”
On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to respond with retaliatory tariffs if Trump slaps additional levies on Canadian goods as part of Wednesday’s expected tariff announcement.
Trump said in a social media post that the U.S. is “making progress to end this terrible Fentanyl Crisis” that he claims is coming from Canada, and said that “Republicans in the Senate MUST vote to keep the National Emergency in place, so we can finish the job, and end the scourge.”
During a press conference on Tuesday, Democrats argued that Trump is falsely imposing an emergency in order to give cover for the tariffs with hopes of raising revenue to pay for his tax cut plan. That’s why they say this vote is so important.
Trump criticized Kaine for his role in the effort to block tariffs.
“Don’t let the Democrats have a Victory. It would be devastating for the Republican Party and, far more importantly, for the United States,” Trump wrote.
Unlike most legislation in the Senate, this resolution will only need a simple majority of votes to pass, and it very likely may. Only a handful of Republicans would be needed to hit that threshold.
But there is nothing compelling the House, controlled by Republicans, to take up the legislation, and it’s almost certain that House Speaker Mike Johnson would stay far away from the resolution.
The Senate vote could get pushed to Wednesday as Sen. Cory Booker continues a filibuster he started at 7 p.m. Monday night. Booker is protesting against the national “crisis” he said Trump and Elon Musk created.
A number of Republicans have expressed skepticism about Canadian tariffs and now find themselves in a difficult place of having to choose whether to block Trump’s authority or cast a vote to try to forestall the tariffs.
Majority Leader John Thune said Monday that he’s unsure whether they’ll be able to defeat the resolution.
“We’ll see,” he said. “Obviously, as you know, and I’m among these, there is concerns about tariffs on Canada and, you know, what the ultimate objective is. If it’s about fentanyl and stopping the drug trade, drug war, that’s an issue obviously that there is a lot of interest. Obviously we want to give the president as much latitude as possible to deal with specific problems like that, but as you know, I’m in a very different place when it comes to across-the-board tariffs and Canada.”
Thune said on Tuesday that he hopes “we’ll have the votes.”
“The president declared the emergency to deal with the issue of fentanyl — flow of fentanyl into this country, not only from our southern border, but also from our north. That’s what the emergency declaration is about. And what this would do is undo that,” he said. “I think the president needs to have tools at his disposal to deal with what I think are national emergencies. And certainly, you know, the tens of thousands of people that are killed in this country every year, because fentanyl represents that. So I hope we’ll have the votes.”
