Little Rock, Arkansas – A federal judge has dismissed claims filed against individual Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents involved in the deadly 2024 raid that resulted in the death of former Clinton National Airport Director Bryan Malinowski.
The ruling, issued Monday by Judge Lee Rudofsky, removes the individual ATF agents from the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Malinowski’s widow, Maria Malinowski. The decision was based on a legal issue involving a type of constitutional claim known as a “Bivens claim,” which allows individuals in some circumstances to sue federal officers for alleged constitutional violations.
The lawsuit was filed in May 2025 by Maria Malinowski, who accused the ATF and multiple agents of wrongdoing connected to the March 19, 2024, raid at the couple’s home in west Little Rock. The operation ended with Bryan Malinowski being shot by federal agents and later dying from his injuries.
Before his death, Malinowski was serving as the director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock. Federal authorities had been investigating his firearm activities before the raid, according to court documents.
An affidavit from the U.S. Attorney’s Office stated that Malinowski had purchased more than 150 firearms over a three-year period. The affidavit also said that at least six of those firearms were later recovered at separate crime scenes across the country. Additionally, investigators said three other firearms had been purchased by undercover agents during the investigation.
According to police accounts, agents arrived at Malinowski’s home in March 2024 to execute a search warrant. Authorities said Malinowski fired a weapon at agents during the operation, and officers returned fire. Malinowski was struck by gunfire and later died.
However, the wrongful death lawsuit filed by his widow questioned the way federal agents planned and carried out the operation. The lawsuit argued that the actions of the agents during the raid violated Malinowski’s rights and contributed to his death.
The U.S. government previously asked the court to dismiss nine claims brought in the lawsuit. In an order filed in June, Judge Rudofsky rejected the request to dismiss eight of those claims, allowing allegations including wrongful death, negligence, assault, and battery to continue.
The judge did dismiss one false imprisonment claim and removed the ATF as a defendant. However, the case continued against the United States government and other parties named in the lawsuit.
On July 6, 2026, Judge Rudofsky issued another order specifically addressing claims against the individual ATF agents. The judge ruled that those claims could not proceed under the Bivens doctrine.
In his order, Rudofsky explained that modern Supreme Court decisions have made it increasingly difficult for individuals to bring Bivens claims against federal officers, even when a person alleges that constitutional rights were violated.
The judge found that the circumstances surrounding Malinowski’s case were not close enough to the original Bivens case from 1971, which involved federal narcotics agents conducting a search of a home without a warrant.
That earlier case, known as Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, became the foundation for allowing certain lawsuits against federal officials. However, Rudofsky noted that Malinowski’s case involved federal agents carrying out a search warrant, which created a significant legal distinction.
The court order identified the search warrant as a key difference between the two cases and said Supreme Court precedent required the dismissal of the claims against the individual agents.
Although the claims against the ATF agents have been dismissed, the broader lawsuit is not over. Maria Malinowski’s case against the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) will continue.
The FTCA allows individuals to seek damages from the federal government in certain situations involving the actions of government employees. The remaining portion of the lawsuit will eventually be reviewed and decided by a judge.
The latest ruling represents a partial outcome in a case that has drawn attention because of the circumstances surrounding the raid and the legal questions involving federal law enforcement actions. While the individual agents are no longer defendants in the constitutional claims, the dispute over the government’s responsibility under the FTCA remains active.
