We will hear argument first this morning in case 24362 Martin v. United States.

Mr. Jackamo.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

Congress amended the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1974 to ensure a legal remedy for the intentional

torts of federal police.

The text of the law enforcement proviso is phrased affirmatively as a

freestanding rule. With regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement

officers of the United States government, the FTCA shall apply to any claim arising out of six

intentional torts. The United States is therefore liable for these intentional

torts when committed by FBI agents empowered by law to execute searches, seizures, and arrests.

Petitioners bring the claims Congress expressly permitted, but the 11th Circuit held that

sovereign immunity bars them. As a result, the Court asked the parties to address

two questions. First, whether the Supremacy Clause bars FTCA claims. The answer is no, and the parties

agree. As a federal statute, the FTCA is protected by federal supremacy, not restricted by it.

Second, whether the discretionary function

exception is categorically inapplicable to proviso claims. The answer is yes for two distinct

reasons. Read in harmony, the provisions cover different categories. Once a plaintiff satisfies

Section 1346B1, by alleging the elements of an intentional tort,

the discretionary function exception does not apply because intentional torts require

unlawfulness.

There's no such thing as a discretionary intentional tort.

Right in hostility, assuming inter-statutory conflict, the text informed by familiar

...