Let's see how much we can twist this law

Got to laugh at this. The FBI raided the wrong house in 2017, threw in a flash bang grenade, ripped off the front door, held the occupants ... and they just now, 8 years later, got permission to ask the Supreme Court for permission to ask the appeals court for permission to ask the trial court for permission to sue the feds. The funny part, if you can call anything in this funny, is that the pertinent law which allows suing the feds has an exception to prohibit suing the feds in some circumstances, but that has its own exception to allow suing in other circumstances.

The justices instead considered if the lower court had erred when it also blocked the suit from proceeding under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the law that allows individuals to bring certain state-law tort claims against the federal government for damages caused by federal workers acting within the scope of their employment.

There are many exceptions to the FTCA, however, that allow the feds to evade such claims — a microcosm of the convoluted maze plaintiffs must navigate to sue the government. One of those, the intentional tort exception, dooms suits that allege intentional wrongdoing, including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest, among several others. Yet the FTCA also contains a law enforcement proviso — essentially an exception to the exception — that permits such claims to proceed when the misconduct is committed by "investigative or law enforcement officers." Notably here, Congress passed that addition in the 1970s in response to two highly publicized wrong-house raids.

So you can't sue if the feds screw up on purpose, but you can if the screw up by mistake. Doesn't that have mens rea a little backwards, the ancient legal theory that you have to intend to break a law to be convicted? And if it doesn't apply to cops, who does it apply to — postmasters and IRS clerks?

Chartertopia avoids this whole mess mostly because all police are private police and have no immunity and no special powers. And any bylaw this convoluted would be voided for incomprehensibility. See this remark, by a Supreme Court justice, for instance:

But the plaintiffs' legal battle is still far from over. "If federal officers raid the wrong house, causing property damage and assaulting innocent occupants, may the homeowners sue the government for damages?" wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch. "The answer is not as obvious as it might be."

That very confusion shows no one, not even a Supreme Court justice, can understand it. But wait — there's more!

Arguably the bigger question before the Court pertained to a different FTCA carve-out: the discretionary function exception, which, true to its name, precludes claims from proceeding if the alleged misconduct came from a duty that involves discretion. The 11th Circuit dismissed Martin and Cliatt's claims alleging negligent wrongdoing — legally distinct from intentional torts — writing that "the FBI did not have stringent policies or procedures in place that dictate how agents are to prepare for warrant executions." Lawrence Guerra, a former FBI special agent and the leader of the raid, thus had discretion, the judges said.

But mostly I'm just amazed at how this surprises me. I bet there's some law out there with a third level of exceptions, just waiting for some lawyer to stumble across when he drops his lunch money and has to start chasing dimes rolling around the dust on the law library floor.