9.2 Governmental Immunity
3 min read•july 23, 2024
shields governments from lawsuits, rooted in the notion that "the king can do no wrong." It's not absolute though - governments can waive it, allowing certain types of suits against them. This impacts how we hold officials accountable.
Different levels of immunity exist for government officials. fully protects judges, legislators, and prosecutors in specific roles. shields executive officials unless they clearly violate established rights. These distinctions shape how we approach government liability.
Sovereign Immunity and Governmental Liability
Origins of sovereign immunity
Top images from around the web for Origins of sovereign immunity
File:Diagram showing system of common law courts in England and Wales before the Judicature Acts ... View original
Is this image relevant?
File:Diagram showing system of common law courts in England and Wales before the Judicature Acts ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 1
Top images from around the web for Origins of sovereign immunity
File:Diagram showing system of common law courts in England and Wales before the Judicature Acts ... View original
Is this image relevant?
File:Diagram showing system of common law courts in England and Wales before the Judicature Acts ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 1
- Protects government from being sued without consent
- Originated from English common law concept "the king can do no wrong"
- Based on idea that sovereign (government) is source of law and cannot be held accountable under the law
- In the United States, applies to both federal and state governments
- to U.S. Constitution grants immunity to states from being sued in federal court by citizens of other states or foreign countries (France, Canada)
- Not absolute and can be waived by the government
- Congress can pass legislation allowing specific types of lawsuits against the government ()
Absolute vs qualified immunity
- Absolute immunity provides complete protection from civil liability for government officials performing certain functions
- Judges have absolute immunity for (issuing warrants, presiding over trials)
- Legislators have absolute immunity for (drafting and voting on bills)
- Prosecutors have absolute immunity for (filing charges, presenting evidence)
- Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
- Applies to (police officers, government employees)
- Balances need to hold officials accountable with need to protect them from harassment and distraction
- To overcome, plaintiff must show official violated clearly established right and reasonable person would have known action was unlawful (excessive force, unlawful search)
Federal Tort Claims Act impact
- Federal law allowing private parties to sue United States government for torts committed by federal employees
- Enacted in 1946 as limited waiver of sovereign immunity
- Allows claims for , , or omissions by federal employees acting within scope of employment (postal worker causing car accident, VA hospital malpractice)
- Government liable in same manner and extent as private individual under similar circumstances
- Plaintiffs must first file with responsible federal agency before filing lawsuit
- If claim denied or not resolved within six months, plaintiff can file lawsuit in federal court
- Subject to several exceptions and limitations
- Excludes claims arising from intentional torts, combat activities, and discretionary functions (military decisions, policy choices)
Exceptions to governmental immunity
- is significant limitation to Federal Tort Claims Act
- Protects government from liability for acts or omissions involving judgment or choice based on
- Applies when challenged action involves permissible exercise of policy judgment (agency deciding how to allocate resources)
- Other exceptions include:
- barring claims by military personnel for injuries sustained incident to service (training accidents, medical malpractice)
- Intentional tort exception excluding claims arising from assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights
- barring claims for damages caused by imposition or establishment of federal government quarantine (COVID-19 travel restrictions)
Key Terms to Review (16)
Absolute immunity: Absolute immunity is a legal doctrine that protects certain officials and entities from civil liability for actions taken while performing their official duties. This immunity is intended to allow public officials to perform their functions without the fear of personal liability, which could hinder their ability to make decisions in the best interest of the public. In this context, absolute immunity applies to specific roles, such as judges and prosecutors, and is a critical aspect when evaluating governmental functions and privileges.
Administrative claim: An administrative claim is a formal request made to a government agency for compensation or relief due to injury or damages caused by the agency's actions or omissions. This process is often a prerequisite before an individual can file a lawsuit against the government, allowing the agency to investigate and potentially resolve the issue without litigation. Understanding this claim is crucial when discussing governmental immunity, as it determines how individuals can seek redress from entities that may typically be shielded from legal liability.
Discretionary function exception: The discretionary function exception refers to a legal principle that protects government entities from liability in tort claims when the actions in question involve policy-making decisions or exercise of discretion. This exception applies when the government is making choices grounded in social, economic, or political factors, shielding it from lawsuits related to these decisions.
Eleventh Amendment: The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1795, establishes the principle of sovereign immunity, which protects states from being sued in federal court by citizens of another state or by foreign citizens. This amendment is crucial in defining the limits of judicial power and ensuring that states retain a degree of immunity from lawsuits, thus impacting the legal landscape regarding governmental immunity and individual rights.
Executive branch officials: Executive branch officials are individuals who hold positions within the executive branch of government, responsible for enforcing laws and managing public policy. These officials include the President, governors, mayors, and various appointed officers who oversee government departments and agencies. Their roles are essential for the operation of government and often come with certain legal protections, particularly in relation to governmental immunity.
Federal Tort Claims Act: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a U.S. law that allows private citizens to sue the federal government for negligent acts committed by its employees in the course of their official duties. This act essentially waives the government's sovereign immunity, making it possible for individuals to seek compensation for damages caused by federal actions, similar to how they would sue a private party. The FTCA establishes specific procedures and limitations for filing claims, ensuring a balance between holding the government accountable and protecting it from unlimited liability.
Feres Doctrine: The Feres Doctrine is a legal principle established by the U.S. Supreme Court that prevents service members from suing the federal government for injuries that arise out of or are related to their military service. This doctrine is rooted in the idea that military personnel should not have the ability to bring tort claims against the government for incidents related to their official duties, which is meant to maintain military discipline and cohesion.
Judicial Actions: Judicial actions refer to the formal proceedings and processes initiated in a court of law to resolve legal disputes or adjudicate matters brought before it. These actions can include trials, motions, appeals, and other legal mechanisms where parties seek a resolution from the judiciary. Understanding judicial actions is essential, especially when considering how governmental entities may be held accountable through the courts while also exploring the complexities of immunity that these entities may invoke.
Legislative activities: Legislative activities refer to the actions and processes undertaken by legislative bodies, such as drafting, proposing, debating, and enacting laws. These activities are essential for creating statutes that govern society, and they often involve various stakeholders, including lawmakers, interest groups, and the public. Understanding legislative activities is crucial when considering the broader implications of governmental immunity and the protections afforded to government entities in relation to their legislative functions.
Negligence: Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances, leading to harm or injury to another person. This concept is central to tort law, as it establishes liability for individuals whose careless actions or omissions result in damage or injury to others, connecting to various legal principles and doctrines.
Prosecutorial Duties: Prosecutorial duties refer to the responsibilities and ethical obligations of prosecutors in the criminal justice system to seek justice rather than merely to convict. This includes ensuring that defendants receive fair treatment, adhering to legal standards, and disclosing exculpatory evidence that may prove a defendant's innocence. Prosecutors hold a significant position within the legal system, which requires them to balance their role as advocates for the state with their obligation to uphold justice and the rule of law.
Public Policy Considerations: Public policy considerations refer to the legal principles and societal values that influence the creation and application of laws, particularly in the realm of tort law. These considerations often dictate the extent to which individuals or entities can be held liable for harm, balancing the need for justice against broader societal implications, such as the efficient functioning of government and public resources.
Qualified immunity: Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials from liability for constitutional violations, provided their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. This doctrine balances the need to hold public officials accountable for misuse of power with the necessity to protect them from frivolous lawsuits that could hinder their ability to perform their duties effectively.
Quarantine exception: The quarantine exception refers to a legal principle that allows for the temporary suspension of liability for government entities during public health emergencies, particularly in the context of quarantine and isolation measures. This principle acknowledges the need for swift action in response to health crises while balancing individual rights with the collective good, thus providing a shield against claims arising from governmental actions that may restrict personal freedoms.
Sovereign immunity: Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects governments and their agencies from being sued without their consent. This principle is rooted in the idea that the state cannot commit a legal wrong and is thus immune from civil suit. It also highlights the balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining government functions, as it allows government entities to operate without the constant threat of litigation.
Wrongful Acts: Wrongful acts refer to actions that cause harm or injury to another person and are considered legally actionable. These acts can take many forms, including negligence, intentional misconduct, or strict liability offenses, and they serve as the basis for legal claims in tort law. Understanding the nature of wrongful acts is crucial in assessing liability and determining whether a legal remedy is available for the injured party.