James Jimerson and his kids were fast asleep on what was supposed to be a normal evening in March 2019. His wife, Karen, says she was showering when she suddenly heard a loud bang followed by the sound of her windows breaking.
Karen rushed from the bathroom half naked when she and her daughter allege they were met with men dressed in all-black vests labeled "SWAT,” pointing guns at them as Karen begged them not to shoot. Officers shouted at them to get on the ground.
The SWAT team had smashed in the front door of the Lancaster, Texas family’s home, deployed a flashbang grenade and held Karen and James and their three children at gunpoint — before one officer reportedly yelled, “wrong house!”
The incident, detailed in federal court documents, left the Jimersons' home damaged and their family traumatized.
But the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the family's case, leaving in place a ruling that granted the officer who led the raid qualified immunity — a controversial legal doctrine that gives government officials immunity from being sued in certain situations.
In a statement, Karen Jimerson said she was disappointed the justices declined her case.
“This raid never should have happened in the first place, and it feels like we’ve been denied justice ever since,” Jimerson said.
An attorney representing the defendant, Lt. Mike Lewis, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
For a qualified immunity argument to be successful, judges must consider two things: whether the official conduct violated a right granted under the U.S. Constitution — like the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure — and whether it violated "clearly established law."
Opponents of qualified immunity say it's historically been used too liberally. In a highly publicized case, two Texas officers were granted immunity after using a stun gun on a man who doused himself in gasoline — even after being told, "if we tase him, he's going to light on fire."
Supporters of the doctrine say it shields government workers from being sued over reasonable actions taken while in the line of duty.
In the case of the Jimersons, the Waxahachie Police Department’s SWAT team was planning to execute a no-knock warrant — which allows law enforcement to enter a home without announcing their presence or knocking — on a separate home in Lancaster suspected of holding drugs, according to court records.
But officers arriving at the scene gathered in front of the wrong home. Lewis, who was leading the SWAT team, realized they were at the wrong home, and without checking the address, ordered his team to raid the home of Karen and James Jimerson instead, according to court records.
“Although he later claimed that he ‘believed’ the Jimersons’ address matched the warrant, Lewis conceded he ‘did not even check the number’ before ordering the SWAT team to execute,” court documents alleged.
Lewis should have known the Jimersons’ house was not his target, the family argued, because the target house was under surveillance, and Lewis had a copy of the search warrant listing the correct address. The target home also had a detached garage and a fence around the perimeter, while the Jimersons' house had neither, according to court records.
An internal investigation by the Waxahachie Police Department found Lewis’ actions “completely overlooked” reasonable and normal protocol. Its police chief said mistakes like these should never happen and Lewis was suspended without pay for two days after the incident.
The Jimersons sued Lewis and the other officers in 2020, arguing they violated the family’s Fourth Amendment rights. A district court granted all officers involved except Lewis qualified immunity.
Lewis appealed that decision, claiming the law he “admittedly violated was not clearly established,” according to court records.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Lewis in 2024, arguing his efforts to identity the correct home “did not violate clearly established law.” The court denied the Jimersons’ request for a rehearing, leading to them to take it up with the Supreme Court.
Patrick Jaicomo, an attorney for the plaintiffs with the Institute for Justice, called the Fifth Circuit’s decision an “obvious error” that the high court should have rectified.
“The commander himself admitted that he violated an innocent family’s constitutional rights by unreasonably raiding their home," he wrote in a statement. “But qualified immunity means that those rights have no remedy in an American court.”
Got a tip? Email Penelope Rivera at privera@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
Copyright 2025 KERA