SCOTUS hearing case of Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear the case of an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI on Tuesday.
Channel 2 investigative reporter Ashli Lincoln has been following Trina Martin's fight against the federal government for years.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
In October 2017, FBI agents came into Trina Martin's Atlanta home, pointing guns at her and her then-boyfriend while her then-7-year-old son watched in another room.
Within a few minutes, agents realized they had the wrong home and left Martin's house.
The agent who led the raid said his personal GPS led him to the wrong place while they looked for a suspected gang member a few houses away.
It wasn't until an agent double-checked the mailbox numbers that the FBI realized it was the wrong home.
RELATED STORIES:
SCOTUS to hear Atlanta family's case after FBI mistakenly raided their house
Georgia family hopes Supreme Court hears their case after FBI mistakenly raided their house
The FBI mistakenly raided their Atlanta home. Now the Supreme Court will hear their lawsuit
On Tuesday, Martin's attorney will go before the U.S. Supreme Court and ask justices to reinstate her 2019 lawsuit against the federal government that accused the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and more.
In 2022, an Atlanta federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. That decision was upheld by a Court of Appeals judge last year. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case in January.
'I am so happy and filled with gratitude for our case to be seen and recognized,' Martin told Lincoln. 'When something like this happens whether it's intentional or by mistake, it shatters that sense of safety that we all have.'
The Supreme Court is set to hear Martin's case on Tuesday morning. Get the latest updates on the hearing on WSBTV.com and on Channel 2 Action News at Noon.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Praises Supreme Court for Fixing Birthright Citizenship ‘Scam' Originally Meant for the ‘Babies of Slaves'
President Trump, during a last-minute press conference on Friday, praised the Supreme Court for its 'monumental' decision limiting nationwide injunctions against executive orders, including his order ending birthright citizenship. The president had signed EO 14160 in January, which said citizenship should not be granted automatically to people born in the U.S. That executive order was thwarted soon after it was signed, with multiple federal judges issuing national preliminary injunctions to stop it from being enforced; the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday lifted those injunctions. '[The 14th Amendment] was meant for the babies of slaves,' President Trump said on Friday. 'It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.' President Trump applauded the conservative justices who ruled in his favor, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the ruling. The president said he had 'great respect' for Barrett and her ruling was 'brilliantly written.' 'It's been an amazing period of time, this last hour,' the president said. 'There are people elated all over the country.' President Trump's Friday comments echo what he said in January, when he said the Fourteenth Amendment was 'noble' and 'meant for the children of slaves,' but not meant to grant citizenship to everyone born on American soil. He added on Friday that 'some of the worst people' had been exploiting birthright citizenship to bring children into the country illegally. When asked by one reporter if nurses would check the legal status of parents after their children are born, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that is a matter that will be decided by the Supreme Court in October. Trump, moments before his press conference, posted on Truth Social about the legal victory. 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard,' the president posted. 'It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process.' The 6-3 Supreme Court ruling was made along party lines. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Justice Barrett wrote. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted lawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The ruling said President Trump's executive order cannot go into effect until 30 days after post Trump Praises Supreme Court for Fixing Birthright Citizenship 'Scam' Originally Meant for the 'Babies of Slaves' appeared first on TheWrap.
3 hours ago
US cities cap Pride Month with a mix of party and protest
NEW YORK -- The monthlong celebration of LGBTQ+ Pride reaches its rainbow-laden crescendo as New York and other major cities around the world host major parades and marches on Sunday. The festivities in Manhattan, home to the nation's oldest and largest Pride celebration, kick off with a march down Fifth Avenue featuring more than 700 participating groups and expected huge crowds. Marchers will wind past the Stonewall Inn, a Greenwich Village gay bar where a 1969 police raid triggered protests and fired up the LGBTQ+ rights movement. The site is now a national monument. In San Francisco, marchers in another of the world's largest Pride events will head down the city's central Market Street, reaching concert stages set up at the Civic Center Plaza. San Francisco's mammoth City Hall is also among the venues hosting a post-march party. Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis and Toronto, Canada are among the other major North American cities hosting Pride parades on Sunday. Several global cities including Tokyo, Paris and Sao Paulo, held their events earlier this month while others come later in the year, including London in July and Rio de Janeiro in November. The first pride march was held in New York City in 1970 to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall uprising. Pride celebrations are typically a daylong mix of jubilant street parties and political protest, but organizers said this year's iterations will take a more defiant stance than recent years. The festivities come days after the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark June 26, 2015, ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that recognized same-sex marriage nationwide. But Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, have sought to roll back LGBTQ+ friendly policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has specifically targeted transgender people, removing them from the military, preventing federal insurance programs from paying for gender-affirmation surgeries for young people and attempting to keep transgender athletes out of girls and women's sports. The theme for the Manhattan event is, appropriately, 'Rise Up: Pride in Protest." San Francisco's Pride theme is 'Queer Joy is Resistance' while Seattle's is simply 'Louder.' 'This is not a time to be quiet,' Patti Hearn, Seattle Pride's executive director, said in a statement ahead of the event. 'We will stand up. We will speak up. We will get loud.' Among the other headwinds faced by gay rights groups this year is the loss of corporate sponsorship. American companies have pulled back support of Pride events, reflecting a broader walking back of diversity and inclusion efforts amid shifting public sentiment. NYC Pride said earlier this month that about 20% of its corporate sponsors dropped or reduced support, including PepsiCo and Nissan. Organizers of San Francisco Pride said they lost the support of five major corporate donors, including Comcast and Anheuser-Busch.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Justice Jackson: Supreme Court appears to favor 'monied interests' over ordinary citizens
WASHINGTON − For the second time this month, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has complained that her colleagues are weighing the scales of justice differently depending on who is asking for help. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' she wrote in her disagreement with the majority's June 20 decision that fuel producers can challenge California emissions standards under a federal air pollution law. Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. 'And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's 'remarkably lenient approach' to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the 'stern stance' it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls 'In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing,' Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,' he wrote. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Justice Jackson questions if 'monied interests' are favored by court
