Marimar Martinez, Shot Five Times by a Border Patrol Agent in Chicago in 2025, Sues the U.S. Government
The Oct. 5 suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleges seven claims, including battery, false arrest and malicious prosecution. Federal prosecutors dropped the assault charges against Martinez in November 2025 without trial. Her lawyers say video and a new bullet-path analysis contradict the agent's account.
A year-old shooting becomes a federal lawsuit
On Monday, Oct. 5, 2026, lawyers for Marimar Martinez filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago[3][17]. Martinez is 31. She is a U.S. citizen and a Montessori teaching aide. The suit names only the United States as defendant[1][3].
It came almost exactly one year after Border Patrol agent Charles Exum shot her on Oct. 4, 2025[1][6]. The shooting happened in the Brighton Park area of Chicago's Southwest Side. It took place during Operation Midway Blitz, a federal immigration enforcement surge[2][5]. Exum fired five shots into her car. Martinez has seven wounds[3].
The suit makes seven claims. They are negligence, battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution[3][6]. The government has not yet answered the suit in court. Exum has not been charged with any crime[6].
What nobody disputes
Several facts are not in question. Martinez had been following the agents' SUV and honking her horn. She says she wanted to alert neighbors that agents were nearby[5][19]. She had a handgun in her purse. Her lawyer says she held a license and a concealed-carry permit for it[9].
Afterward, Exum wrote in a group Signal chat with other agents. He wrote: "I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys."[9] CBP says it placed him on administrative leave, "consistent with policy" for significant use-of-force incidents[7][8]. It has not reported a final disciplinary outcome.
Martinez was also charged. She was indicted for assaulting and impeding a federal officer[6]. About six weeks after the shooting, in November 2025, prosecutors agreed to drop the case with prejudice[2][10][11]. That means it can never be brought again. Prosecutors did not explain the decision in public.
Where Exum stood
The core dispute is simple to state. Where was Exum when he fired, and did he reasonably fear for his life?
Exum testified that he was in front of the car and believed it was about to hit him. He fired to stop it[1][9][16]. Agents in the SUV said vehicles following them had "boxed in" the SUV during a tense operation[9].
Martinez's lawyers hired a shooting-reconstruction expert, Jeremy Bauer of Bauer Forensics. The expert says three shots went through the passenger side of the windshield from beside the car. Another went through the front passenger window. The last shots went through the rear passenger window as she drove away[1][17]. Her lawyers say that means he was not in the car's path. The suit also alleges Exum was walking toward the car while firing.
They add a second point. In-car video, they say, captures an agent saying "we're going to make contact" just before the agents' SUV swerved into her car. They argue that makes the agents the cause of the collision[9].
This reconstruction comes from her side. The government has not yet offered its own analysis in court.
Two legal standards that pull in opposite directions
Two rules shape how each side argues. The first is the "reasonable fear" standard. An officer may use deadly force if he reasonably believed he faced death or serious injury at that moment. The question is not whether the belief later proves wrong.
That is why the government stresses what Exum saw in seconds: a car, a collision, a "boxed in" warning, a driver with an unknown intent[9]. It is also why Martinez's side stresses bullet paths. If he was beside or behind the car, they argue, no reasonable officer could have feared being run over[17]. If a judge finds the car's movement still posed a threat, her claim weakens.
The second rule is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Normally you can't sue the U.S. government, because of "sovereign immunity." The FTCA is Congress's exception. It allows suits for harm caused by federal employees on the job. The case is judged under the law of the state where it happened, here Illinois[20].
The steps are fixed. A plaintiff first files an administrative claim with the agency. If the agency denies it or does nothing for six months, she can sue. A judge, not a jury, decides. Punitive damages aren't allowed. The award generally can't exceed the amount in the administrative claim[20].
Martinez's earlier claim sought "tens of millions of dollars"[7][17]. That figure is roughly her ceiling. It is also why the suit names only the United States, not Exum personally[3][17]. The FTCA specifically covers assault, battery, false arrest and malicious prosecution claims against federal law-enforcement officers[20].
The dismissal cuts both ways. Malicious prosecution requires Martinez to show the charges lacked probable cause. It also requires that the case ended in her favor. The dismissal helps on the second point. But no judge or jury ever ruled on who was at fault. A grand jury did indict her, and the government can be expected to cite that on probable cause[3][11].
What each side wants
Martinez and her lawyers say a citizen who was warning her neighbors was shot, branded a "domestic terrorist" and prosecuted on a false story[12][19]. They want money damages, a cleared name and public accountability. They say openly that they hope the suit pushes federal or local prosecutors to charge Exum[3][6]. A court finding would also create a public record. A prosecution dropped without trial never produced one.
The government's best case is about split-second danger, not hindsight. Martinez's gun was in her purse. Agents couldn't know in the moment that it was legal or harmless[9]. The grand jury indicted her. And dropping a case, the government can say, is not a finding of innocence or of officer misconduct[3][10].
The government also has institutional stakes. It wants to limit liability and protect the standard that lets agents use force when they reasonably fear for their lives. It also wants to avoid a ruling that could shape claims from other Midway Blitz encounters[22]. Any damages would come from public funds.
Prosecutors sit in an awkward spot. The Justice Department will now defend the United States in the civil case. Its own prosecution is the subject of the malicious-prosecution claim[3]. Their silence on the dismissal lets each camp read it its own way.
Chicago's immigrant-rights community and local officials see the shooting as proof that Midway Blitz put ordinary residents in danger. They argue that honking to warn neighbors is protected speech, not an attack[1][19]. Martinez gave written testimony to Senate Democrats in February 2026 and to the House Homeland Security Committee in April 2026[19].
Whose version set the story
Shortly after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said agents were "ambushed by domestic terrorists" who "rammed" them[12]. That framing set the national story before the video emerged. Court records and news reports later challenged it widely[12][15][22]. Former DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin left in February 2026 amid criticism over false public claims[21].
Now Martinez's legal team leads. They have released evidence in timed batches, including the Signal text, the in-car audio and the expert reconstruction. They tie the suit to calls for criminal charges[6][9]. Much of this week's coverage leans on their materials because the government hasn't filed a response. We also couldn't obtain the complaint itself. Its contents here come from reporters who read it and from her lawyers.
Outlets framed the story in different ways. NBC News, ABC News and The Hill ran plain action headlines, such as "files lawsuit against federal government"[4][5]. The Chicago Sun-Times put her push for criminal charges in its headline[3]. Block Club Chicago led with the anniversary and gave the expert's account strong placement, with a thin government response[1]. MS NOW's emphasis fell on the agent's conduct and DHS's discredited statements[14]. The Portland Press Herald focused on the Maine-based agent and kept the claim in the plaintiff's voice with "saying"[18].
Right-leaning coverage was thin. The Washington Examiner ran a short item under the headline "sues Trump administration"[13]. We found no major right-leaning outlet defending the agent at length this week, and none from non-U.S. outlets.
Some coverage also treats the dismissal as proof that agents lied. Prosecutors never gave that reason.
The next step is the government's response. That filing will show whether it contests the expert's bullet-path account, and how it uses the grand jury indictment. Whether any prosecutor brings charges against Exum remains open. Cook County State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke has said law enforcement must first build a case before her office could consider charges.
Summary
Marimar Martinez is a U.S. citizen and Montessori teaching aide from Chicago. On Oct. 5, 2026, she sued the United States in federal court in Chicago[1][3]. On Oct. 4, 2025, Border Patrol agent Charles Exum shot her five times in her car. It happened on the city's Southwest Side during Operation Midway Blitz, a federal immigration enforcement surge[2][5]. She has seven wounds[3]. Her suit alleges negligence, battery, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution[3][6].
Right after the shooting, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said agents were 'ambushed by domestic terrorists' who 'rammed' them[12]. Martinez was indicted for assaulting and impeding a federal officer[6]. About six weeks later, in November 2025, prosecutors dropped the case with prejudice, which means it cannot be brought again[2][10]. They did not explain the decision in public. Martinez's lawyers had argued that body-camera and in-car video contradicted the agents' version[6][9].
The core dispute is where Exum stood when he fired, and whether he reasonably feared for his life. Exum said he was in front of the car and in danger of being hit[1][9]. Martinez's lawyers hired a shooting-reconstruction expert. They say the bullet holes show Exum was beside the car, and that one shot traveled from back to front as she drove away[1][17]. The government has not answered the lawsuit in court. Exum has not been charged with any crime. CBP says it put him on administrative leave 'consistent with policy' for serious use-of-force incidents[7][8].
The Event
On Monday, Oct. 5, 2026, lawyers for Marimar Martinez, 31, filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Chicago[3][17]. The suit names only the United States as defendant. It is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act[1][3]. The filing came almost exactly one year after Border Patrol agent Charles Exum shot Martinez on Oct. 4, 2025[1][6].
Undisputed Facts
- Border Patrol agent Charles Exum fired five shots into Martinez's vehicle in Chicago's Brighton Park area on Oct. 4, 2025, during Operation Midway Blitz[2][5].
- Martinez had been following the agents' SUV, honking her horn to alert neighbors that agents were nearby[5][19].
- Martinez was charged with assaulting, impeding and interfering with a federal officer. The charges were dismissed with prejudice in November 2025 after prosecutors agreed to drop them[3][10][11].
- Martinez had a handgun in her purse. Her lawyer says she held a license and a concealed-carry permit for it[9].
- After the shooting, Exum wrote in a group Signal chat with other agents: 'I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys.'[9]
- CBP says Exum was placed on administrative leave, 'consistent with policy' for significant use-of-force incidents[7][8].
- Martinez earlier filed an administrative tort claim seeking damages in the 'tens of millions of dollars.' That is the required first step before suing the federal government[17][7].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- How the Federal Tort Claims Act works
- Normally you cannot sue the U.S. government; it has 'sovereign immunity.' The FTCA is Congress's exception. It lets people sue the United States for harm caused by federal employees on the job, judged as if the government were a private person under the law of the state where it happened, here Illinois[20]. The steps are fixed. First you file an administrative claim with the agency. If the agency denies it or does not act within six months, you can sue in federal court. A judge, not a jury, decides the case. Punitive damages are not allowed, and the award generally cannot exceed the amount in the administrative claim[20]. This is why the 'tens of millions' figure from Martinez's earlier claim matters: it is roughly her ceiling. It is also why the suit names only the United States, not Exum personally[3][17]. The FTCA specifically allows assault, battery, false arrest and malicious prosecution claims against federal law-enforcement officers[20]. That covers the core of her case.
- Why each side cares about 'reasonable fear'
- Under self-defense law, an officer may use deadly force if he reasonably believed he faced death or serious injury at that moment. The question is not whether that belief later proves wrong. That is why the government stresses what Exum perceived in seconds: a car, a collision, a 'boxed in' warning, an unknown driver[9]. Martinez's side argues that bullet paths show he was not in the car's path, so no reasonable officer could have feared being run over[17]. If the physical evidence shows he was beside or behind the car, the government's defense gets much harder. If a judge accepts that the car's movement still posed a threat, the claim weakens. The government has not yet filed a response, so its legal defenses in this case are not yet public.
- A dismissal is not a verdict
- Prosecutors dropped the case with prejudice, so it cannot be refiled[10]. But no jury or judge ever ruled on who was at fault. Malicious prosecution requires Martinez to show that the charges lacked probable cause and that the case ended in her favor. The dismissal helps her on the second point, and the civil case will test the first. A grand jury did indict her, and the government can be expected to cite that on probable cause[3][11].
Material realityOne person was shot five times and has seven wounds[3]. The criminal case against her is permanently over[10]. No criminal charges have been filed against the agent[6]. The agent was put on administrative leave, and CBP has not reported a final disciplinary outcome[7][8]. The physical evidence (the car, the bullet holes, body-camera and in-car video, Signal messages) already exists. The civil case will force both sides to test it in front of a federal judge[9][17].
Narrative as a weaponTwo actors have shaped perception most. DHS did so first. Its early statements ('ambushed by domestic terrorists,' 'rammed federal agents') set the national story before any video existed. Those claims were later widely challenged in court records and news reports[12][15][22]. Martinez's legal team now leads. They release evidence in carefully timed batches, including the Signal text, the in-car audio and the expert reconstruction, and tie the suit to calls for criminal charges[6][9]. Coverage this week relies heavily on the plaintiff's own materials, because the government has not filed a response. Readers should note that the expert reconstruction comes from her side, and that any explanation of why prosecutors dropped the charges comes from her lawyers. Prosecutors never gave one.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThey make three arguments. First, a U.S. citizen who was legally warning her neighbors was shot, branded a 'domestic terrorist' and prosecuted on a false story[19][12]. Second, the physical evidence decides it. Their expert says three shots went through the passenger side of the windshield from beside the car, and one went from back to front. That, they argue, means she was driving away, not toward the agent[17][1]. Third, the in-car video shows an agent saying 'we're going to make contact' just before the agents' SUV swerved into her car. They argue that makes the agents, not her, the ones who caused the collision[9].
WhyMoney damages, clearing her name and public accountability. Her lawyers say openly they hope the suit pushes federal or local prosecutors to bring criminal charges against Exum[6][3].
Impact on themMartinez lives with lasting injuries and, she says, emotional trauma and reputational harm[17][19]. A court finding for her would be a public, judge-made record on what happened. A prosecution dropped without trial never produced one.
Frames it asThe best case is about split-second danger, not hindsight. Exum testified that he believed he was about to be hit by a car and fired to stop it[9][16]. Agents in the SUV said they were 'boxed in' by vehicles following them during a tense operation[9]. Martinez had a gun in her purse, which agents could not know was legal or harmless in the moment[9]. A grand jury did indict her. And dropping a case is not a finding of innocence or of officer misconduct. Prosecutors gave no public reason[3][10].
WhyLimit legal liability. Protect the legal standard that lets agents use force when they reasonably fear for their lives. Avoid a ruling that could shape claims from other Midway Blitz encounters[22].
Impact on themIts credibility is at stake. DHS's early 'ambush' and 'rammed' statements have been widely challenged[12][15]. Former DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin left in February 2026 amid criticism of false public claims[21]. Any damages would come from public funds.
Frames it asProsecutors brought the charges and then agreed to drop them for good, with prejudice[10][11]. They have not said in public why. That silence lets both camps read the dismissal their own way.
WhyAvoid trying a case whose evidence was weakening in open court. Avoid deciding in public whether a fellow federal officer committed a crime[6].
Impact on themThe Justice Department will now defend the United States in the civil suit. That is the same office whose prosecution is at issue in the malicious-prosecution claim[3].
Frames it asThey see the shooting as proof that Operation Midway Blitz put ordinary residents in danger. They argue that honking to warn neighbors is protected speech, not an attack[1][19].
WhyConstrain federal immigration tactics in the city. Win accountability for what they call a pattern of force and false statements[15][22].
Impact on themThe case has become a symbol in Congress. Martinez gave written testimony to Senate Democrats in February 2026 and to the House Homeland Security Committee in April 2026[19].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Hill | U.S. center | 2 | Marimar Martinez, shot five times, files lawsuit against federal government | A straight action headline that names the defendant as the federal government, which matches the legal filing. No notable slant seen in the headline. |
| NBC News | U.S. center | 2 | Chicago woman shot 5 times by Border Patrol officer files federal lawsuit | A straight action headline. It presents the 'tens of millions' claim and the expert reconstruction as the plaintiff's, with attribution. |
| Portland Press Herald | U.S. center (Maine local) | 2 | Chicago woman sues U.S. government, saying Maine Border Patrol agent shot her | The local angle centers on the Maine-based agent. Wording that attributes the claim ('saying') keeps the shooting's legal framing in the plaintiff's voice, though the shooting itself is not disputed. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 3 | Chicago woman shot five times by Border Patrol sues Trump administration | The headline is plain and short. The URL slug points to a 'false claim' about her driving, which is notable for a right-leaning outlet. Few right-leaning national outlets covered the anniversary suit at all, and that is the larger tell. We saw only the headline and search snippet, so this score is tentative. |
| MS NOW | U.S. left | 4 | Woman shot 5 times by Border Patrol agent in Chicago sues government | The headline is fairly neutral. The left-leaning network's emphasis falls on the agent's conduct and DHS's discredited statements, with little room for the agent's self-defense claim. |
| Chicago Sun-Times | U.S. center-left (Chicago nonprofit, public-media owned) | 4 | Chicago woman shot by Border Patrol sues feds — and keeps pushing for criminal charges | It puts the plaintiff's advocacy goal (criminal charges) in the headline. Its February story was headlined 'evidence shows feds lied,' attributed to her attorney. |
| Block Club Chicago | U.S. left-leaning nonprofit neighborhood news | 4 | Marimar Martinez Sues Feds A Year After Border Patrol Agent Shot Her 5 Times | The anniversary framing and '5 times' lead are fair. The expert's 'shot her through the back' quote is given strong placement, while the government's response is thin. |
References
- Marimar Martinez Sues Feds A Year After Border Patrol Agent Shot Her 5 Times — Block Club Chicago · Nonprofit Chicago neighborhood news, foundation- and reader-funded; progressive-leaning local coverage
- Marimar Martinez sues federal government over Border Patrol shooting in Chicago — Fox 32 Chicago · Fox Television Stations-owned local broadcast news; local newsroom, center
- Chicago woman shot by Border Patrol sues feds — and keeps pushing for criminal charges — Chicago Sun-Times · Nonprofit owned by Chicago Public Media; center-left editorial page
- Marimar Martinez, shot five times, files lawsuit against federal government — The Hill · Capitol Hill trade outlet owned by Nexstar; centrist with mixed-lean opinion section
- Chicago woman shot 5 times by Border Patrol officer files federal lawsuit — NBC News · Comcast-owned national network news; center to center-left
- Marimar Martinez Hopes New Lawsuit Could Spur Criminal Charges 1 Year After Border Patrol Agent Shot Her — WTTW News · Chicago public broadcaster (PBS member); center
- Marimar Martinez, Chicago woman shot and briefly charged by Border Patrol, moves to sue — Capitol News Illinois · Nonprofit statehouse wire funded by Illinois Press Foundation and donors; center
- DHS says Border Patrol agent was 'placed on administrative leave' after shooting Chicago woman 5 times — Chicago Sun-Times · Nonprofit owned by Chicago Public Media; center-left editorial page
- 'They Picked the Wrong Victim': New Evidence Contradicts Border Patrol Agent's Claims in Shooting of Chicago Woman, Attorneys Say — WTTW News · Chicago public broadcaster (PBS member); center
- Judge dismisses charges against 2 people accused of ramming vehicle of federal agents conducting Chicago immigration sweeps — ABC News · Disney-owned national network news; center
- Judge dismisses charges against Chicago woman shot by Border Patrol — NBC News · Comcast-owned national network news; center to center-left
- DHS Accused of 'Propaganda' for Shifting Story in Shooting — TIME · National newsmagazine owned by Marc Benioff; center-left
- Chicago woman shot five times by Border Patrol sues Trump administration — Washington Examiner · Conservative, owned by Clarity Media (Philip Anschutz)
- Woman shot 5 times by Border Patrol agent in Chicago sues government — MS NOW · Progressive cable news network (formerly MSNBC), owned by Versant
- The many claims by Trump's DHS that have fallen apart — CNN · Warner Bros. Discovery-owned cable news; center-left
- Shooting of Marimar Martinez — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited encyclopedia; summarizes mainstream press, which leans center-left
- Chicago woman shot 5 times by an immigration officer sues the US government — ABC News · Disney-owned national network news; center
- Chicago woman sues U.S. government, saying Maine Border Patrol agent shot her — Portland Press Herald · Maine daily owned by nonprofit National Trust for Local News; center
- Statement of Marimar Martinez (House Homeland Security Committee hearing, April 22, 2026) — U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security · Primary source: plaintiff's own sworn written testimony
- Federal Tort Claims Act — Wikipedia · Crowd-edited encyclopedia; summary of statute and case law
- DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin exits amid criticism over false claims — Reason · Libertarian magazine, Reason Foundation (donor-funded)
- DHS called them 'domestic terrorists' and 'gang members,' but that's not how it played out in court — NewsNation · Nexstar-owned cable news; markets itself as centrist, center to center-right