FTCA Lawsuit Against ICE Filed by Chelsea Green Card Holder

A green card holder who says ICE officers smashed her car windows and slammed her face-first onto a Chelsea, Massachusetts, sidewalk has filed an Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit against ICE, naming the United States as the defendant as the law requires. Hilda Ramirez Sanan, 51, and her two U.S. citizen children seek damages over the September 2025 arrest in Ramirez Sanan v. United States, No. 1:26-cv-14864, file-stamped Oct. 28 in federal court in Boston.

The case is a clean test of the one damages route still open to people who say immigration officers hurt them: the Federal Tort Claims Act. It also shows how slow that route is. The family filed an administrative claim with DHS and ICE on Dec. 15, 2025; the complaint says the government never resolved it within the six months the statute allows, and that silence is what opened the courthouse door. ICE did not respond to The Guardian’s request for comment, and no DHS or ICE statement has been reported.

What the complaint alleges, and what it leaves out

According to the complaint, four unmarked vehicles boxed in the family’s car near Chelsea District Court on Sept. 26, 2025. Officers broke the windows, took the phone she was filming with, pulled her son, who has autism, from the back seat and pushed her onto the concrete, briefly knocking her unconscious. No officer produced a warrant or asked for the identification in her purse, the complaint says; only after local police asked them to check it did the officers confirm her status and release her. Doctors later found a likely radial nerve injury and a possible concussion, according to the complaint.

These are allegations the government has not yet answered. One gap stands out: the complaint says two brothers-in-law in the car were handcuffed and removed, but it does not say why ICE stopped the vehicle. That is likely to be the center of the defense. As FTCA suits must, it frames its claims as torts under Massachusetts law, and it invokes the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in describing the officers’ conduct.

How an FTCA lawsuit against ICE works

The FTCA normally bars assault, battery and false imprisonment claims, but a 1974 amendment makes an exception for “investigative or law enforcement officers,” which is why ICE cases can proceed at all. The steps are set by statute:

Present a written claim to the agency within two years, stating a specific dollar amount.
Wait for a denial, or six months of agency inaction, before suing.
Sue the United States in federal court, where a judge, not a jury, decides and punitive damages are unavailable.

The figure in step one matters. A court generally cannot award more than the amount claimed administratively absent newly discovered evidence. GBH News reported that the family’s claim sought $1 million, while the complaint asks for damages “in an amount to be proven at trial.” If the GBH figure is accurate, it is likely to be the ceiling.

The government’s strongest defense is the discretionary function exception, which shields policy-based choices. In Martin v. United States (2025), a wrong-house FBI raid case, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the law enforcement carve-out does not override that exception and sent the case back to decide how far the exception reaches. How the First Circuit answers that question for street-level force will shape this suit.

What comes next

The United States has 60 days after service to answer or move to dismiss, and a discretionary function motion is the likely first move. That ruling will signal whether unannounced, warrantless vehicle stops can be challenged in tort at all. No federal agency publishes a count of FTCA claims against ICE. The case joins other disputes over force against people with lawful status, including the U.S. citizen student detained near Santa Maria High School, the Woodland ICE vehicle video testing agent immunity, the Minneapolis dentist arrested at his green card interview and the Los Angeles race-based stops case.

Hard questions about suing ICE

Can a green card holder sue the individual ICE officers instead of the United States?

In practice, almost never. Under the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. 2679, a tort claim against a federal employee acting within the scope of the job is treated as a claim against the United States, and the FTCA is the exclusive remedy. The constitutional alternative, a Bivens suit, is nearly closed: in Egbert v. Boule (2022), the Supreme Court refused to extend it to an excessive-force claim against a Border Patrol agent and said Congress should decide whether such remedies exist.

Does a green card holder have to carry the card during a stop like this?

Yes. Under 8 U.S.C. 1304(e), permanent residents 18 and older must carry their registration document, and failing to do so is a misdemeanor. Carrying it does not prevent a stop, but it can shorten one, and here the complaint says the card was in her purse and no officer asked for it until local police stepped in.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts