Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court room crackled with skepticism on April 29, 2025, as justices grilled federal attorneys over a botched FBI raid that upended an Atlanta family’s life. The case, centered on a 2018 SWAT team blunder, had the court’s bench buzzing with sharp questions and one justice flat-out calling the government’s stance “ridiculous.”
It started with Ruby Johnson, a grandmother in her late 70s, whose quiet Atlanta home became a war zone when FBI agents stormed in, guns drawn, on a January morning seven years ago. Acting on a bad tip, the team was hunting a suspect who didn’t live there—never had. They smashed windows, tossed furniture, and left Johnson, shaken but unharmed, staring at a wrecked house. Her front door, splintered. Her sense of safety, gone. The real kicker? The feds later admitted it was the wrong address.
Johnson and her family sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking damages for the chaos. But lower courts tossed the case, saying the government’s immunity shielded it from liability. The feds doubled down, arguing before the Supreme Court that letting the lawsuit proceed would open a floodgate of claims, bogging down law enforcement. That’s when the justices started swinging.
One justice, voice dripping with disbelief, shot back at the government’s lawyer, “That is so ridiculous.” The line landed like a jab in the packed courtroom. Others piled on, poking holes in the feds’ claim that the raid’s fallout—emotional trauma, property damage—wasn’t actionable. They zeroed in on the Act’s language, which allows suits for certain government wrongs, like negligence. Wasn’t barging into the wrong house exactly that?
The court’s liberal wing seemed especially unimpressed, with pointed questions about accountability. Even conservative justices, usually cozy with law enforcement, raised eyebrows at the idea of giving the FBI a free pass. One asked if the government’s position meant citizens had no recourse, no matter how egregious the error. The feds’ attorney stumbled, offering a vague nod to internal reviews but little else.
Johnson’s legal team, backed by the Institute for Justice, argued the raid wasn’t just a whoopsie—it was a violation of basic competence. They pointed to the FBI’s sloppy intel: a single, unverified tip led to the SWAT team’s assault. No one double-checked the address. No one paused to confirm. The family’s lawyers pressed the court to revive the suit, saying immunity shouldn’t mean a blank check for recklessness.
The case, formally docketed as Johnson v. United States, hinges on whether the family’s claims fit the Federal Tort Claims Act’s narrow exceptions. A ruling, expected by June 2025, could redefine how far government immunity stretches when federal agents screw up. For Johnson, now in her 80s, it’s about more than money—it’s about making sure no one else’s home gets turned upside down on a bad hunch.
Oral arguments wrapped after an hour. The justices’ questions leaned hard on the government’s logic, but no decision was announced. The court’s final word will come later this year.