ALERT UPDATE 2020 – WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court Wins
Edition: Week of April 28-May 2, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
The next schedule Order list will be forthcoming on May 5, 2025.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case stemming from a mistaken 2017 FBI SWAT raid in suburban Atlanta. Several justices appeared skeptical of the federal government’s argument that the agents involved should be shielded from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) due to the “discretionary function” exception. However, it remains unclear if that skepticism will translate into a ruling for the victims.
The incident occurred when an FBI-led SWAT team mistakenly raided the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, his partner Curtrina Martin, and her young son, detonating a flashbang grenade and holding the family at gunpoint. Agents were supposed to target a gang member’s house nearby, but failed to verify the address before the raid.
Martin and Cliatt sued under the FTCA, which permits lawsuits against the federal government for certain torts committed by federal employees. A key dispute is how the FTCA’s “discretionary function” exception interacts with its “law-enforcement proviso,” which allows claims for misconduct like assault or false arrest by federal officers.
Lower courts sided with the government, ruling that the victims’ claims—including negligence, trespass, and emotional distress—were barred. The 11th Circuit further ruled that even claims under the law-enforcement proviso were preempted by the Constitution’s supremacy clause if the agents’ actions aligned with federal policy.
At the high court, the victims’ attorney, Patrick Jaicomo, argued that Congress enacted the law-enforcement proviso in 1974 specifically to allow suits like this one and that it overrides the discretionary function exception. Justices expressed concern about the breadth of Jaicomo’s argument and whether the case was the right vehicle for such a sweeping ruling.
Assistant Solicitor General Frederick Liu, arguing for the government, insisted that the law-enforcement proviso does not nullify the discretionary -function defense. Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch pushed back, questioning whether agents can escape liability for traumatizing innocent civilians in botched raids.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested a narrow resolution: ruling that the supremacy clause does not block the claims and remanding the case to the lower court to reconsider the discretionary-function issue. A decision is expected by the end of June.
Looking ahead, the Court has 95 petitions and applications on deck for this week’s conference. Only one case is being relisted: Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc. dba Cover Girls. The justices are weighing when the statute of limitations starts for claims alleging a "pattern or practice" of racial discrimination.
Chanel Nicholson, a Black dancer, sued several Houston-area clubs under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging a long-standing policy limiting the number of Black dancers per shift. She cited discriminatory incidents from 2014, 2017, and 2021. Though she sued in 2021, the district court dismissed the case, ruling that the statute of limitations began with the earliest alleged act in 2014. The 5th Circuit affirmed, holding that the "continuing violations doctrine"—which can preserve claims if the last discriminatory act is timely— applies only to hostile work environment claims, not to discrete acts of discrimination. Nicholson, initially representing herself, now has Supreme Court counsel. She contends there’s a 5-4 circuit split on whether the doctrine applies more broadly to pattern-or-practice claims. The clubs argue that no such split exists and that Nicholson’s 2021 experiences were merely the continuing effects of earlier conduct, not fresh violations. A decision on whether the court will hear Nicholson is expected soon.
OTHER NEWS SUPREME COURT WATCHCIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: 3rd, 4th AND 10th Circuits Deliver Big Wins--United States v. Payo, (No. 19-1631)(3rd Cir. April 28, 2025)– David Payo pled guilty to committing two robberies in 2017. The District Court applied a career-offender enhancement to his sentence based on three of his previous robbery convictions: one federal conviction from 2001, one Pennsylvania conviction from 2008, and one Pennsylvania conviction from 2010. Payo argued that the enhancement was unwarranted because the 2008 and 2010 convictions did not involve crimes of violence. The District Court disagreed, holding that both did—the former based on a state-court docket sheet the Government had not produced, the latter based on an argument the government had not advanced. The Court disagreed with both decisions, and vacated Payo’s sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
United States v. Shields, )No. 2:21-cr-00268) (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 24, 2025)- In this notable opinion, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin addresses
the complexities of federal sentencing in the post-Booker era, particularly focusing on the evolving dynamics between district courts and appellate courts. Following a mandate from the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Goodwin resentenced Mr. Shields. This resentencing served as a platform for the judge to delve into broader concerns about the current state of
appellate review in federal sentencing.
Post-Booker Sentencing Landscape: The opinion reflects on the aftermath of United States v. Booker, which rendered the Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory. Judge Goodwin notes that while
Booker aimed to grant district courts greater discretion, appellate courts have, over time, developed their own interpretations and standards, effectively creating a new set of "Appellate
Guidelines."
Tension Between Courts: The judge discusses the friction between district and appellate courts, highlighting how appellate courts sometimes reverse sentences based on procedural
technicalities when their underlying concern is substantive disagreement. This practice, according to the opinion, undermines the discretion intended for district courts and leads to
inconsistencies across jurisdictions.
Call for Clarity and Consistency: Judge Goodwin emphasizes the need for clear communication and adherence to the law by both district and appellate courts. He advocates for a sentencing
system that balances discretion with consistency, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and transparently.
Judge Goodwin's opinion serves as a critical examination of the current federal sentencing framework, urging a reevaluation of how appellate courts review district court decisions. By
highlighting the unintended consequences of appellate overreach, the opinion calls for a more balanced approach that respects the roles of both trial and appellate courts in the pursuit of
justice.
United States v. Santiago, (No. 24-6015)(10th Cir. April 30, 2025)– Defendant Alexander William Santiago appealed his conviction and sentence. Santiago was convicted at trial and sentenced to 240 months imprisonment on the production count and 120 months imprisonment on the possession count, to run consecutively. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his iPhone, which was initially searched under an impermissibly broad state search warrant and later searched under a federal search warrant whose underlying affidavit relied on the results of the state search. For the reasons explicated infra The Court agreed with Mr. Santiago. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court’s denial of Mr. Santiago’s suppression motion, vacate Mr. Santiago’s conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IS YOUR CONVICTION OR SENTENCE CHALLENGEABLE?Recent Executive Orders and circuit rulings have reopened the door for:
- § 922(g) firearm convictions (non-violent, non-drug priors); and
- Compassionate release motions based on non-retroactive § 403(a) stacking reforms.
Recent wins in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits show courts are rethinking prior convictions and excessive sentencing on § 922(g) convictions.
Please Provide:
- Contact’s name + telephone number
- Court of conviction
- Case number
We’ll notify your contact if relief may be available. Call: (832) 346-0220.
30 Years. Thousands Helped. Real Results.
We offer professional, affordable evaluations for:
- Direct appeals
- § 2255 / § 2241 motions
- First Step Act + Compassionate Release
- Earned time credit disputes
- Clemency + pardon requests
- Specialized State and Federal post-conviction motions
- Case number