“The King is not only incapable of doing wrong but even of thinking wrong. In him is no folly or weakness,” penned down Sir William Blackstone, a British jurist, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England back in 1765.
These words seem to contradict the elements of the Magna Carta (1215) – one of the most famous documents in the world. According to this ‘Great Charter,’ developed to prevent King John from exploiting his people, no monarch is above the law. This means they can be held accountable for unlawful acts such as treason, exploitation, and gross negligence.
But, as the centuries progressed, the English Crown enjoyed a special kind of legal immunity – the sovereign immunity from ever being tried in its own courts. From the latter half of the 18th century, this concept was known in Latin as the “Rex Non-Protest Peccare,” which means “the King can do no wrong.” People back then believed that if the King acted, the act was automatically lawful.
To modern ears, this may sound a bit odd – does legality automatically become the moral code of law? While there are both advocates and opponents of sovereign immunity, it is important to understand it because courts across the world (including the Federal government) practice this legal doctrine. In this article, we will discuss the ins and outs of the US government’s powerful defense mechanism.
The US Adaptation of Sovereign Immunity and Its Types
Let’s wander in the courts of English law for a while – the earliest concept of sovereign immunity was only used as a common law of the court; it had no statutory implications. In English common law, the monarch had sovereign immunity, not the entire court or municipality.
The issue was that the US was founded on the concept of rejection of the monarchy. So, it did adopt the doctrine of sovereign immunity from the English, but with slight changes. 1788 turned the tables when the US court finally extended this immunity to a municipality. The case was that of Russell vs. Men of Devon (County).
The court declared that no municipality could be held liable for its negligence based on tort claims. Finally, 12 years after the Declaration of Independence (1776), Massachusetts became the first state to recognize the governmental doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Fast-forward to today, the Federal government and respective State governments cannot be sued without their consent. The same defense mechanism is not available for municipalities. This immunity may be subdivided into two types –
- Absolute Immunity – This type of sovereign immunity offers Federal employees total protection from civil and criminal liabilities, provided they were functioning within the scope of their official duties. Absolute immunity usually applies to jurors, legislators, and prosecutors.
- Qualified Immunity – This type of sovereign immunity protects Federal employees acting within the scope of their official functions, provided they do not violate an established constitutional or statutory law.
Are There No Exceptions to This Rule?
The legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, despite its humble origins, was capable of becoming lethal in its final implications. Thankfully, the government itself tempered its rigors by making room for certain exceptions, as prescribed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (1946).
This Bill is a Federal legislation which allows certain individuals the right to sue the US government. However, there are conditions to making a legal claim; the plaintiff must prove the following for their claim to be valid –
- They should have suffered property loss, death, or personal injury due to a Federal employee.
- The employee was functioning within the scope of their official duties when the harm occurred.
- The employee’s actions, intentionally or negligently, led to the harm sustained by the plaintiff.
- There should be actual damages suffered due to the employee’s actions.
Some general examples of when the Federal government may be sued by its people include accidental damages caused due to a government vehicle or injuries sustained on a government-owned property. Let’s look at a recent real-world example –
The Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Lawsuit
Besides being an active lawsuit in the Federal Court with its filing window open till August 2024, the Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuit is also expected to be the largest-ever mass tort in US history. By August 2024, as many as 500,000 lawsuits could be filed against the Federal government.
This lawsuit is filed by military servicemen and other residents of North Carolina’s US Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune. Between August 1953 and December 1987, residents of the Camp were exposed to dangerously high levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). According to TorHoerman Law, the most common injuries among plaintiffs (barring wrongful death cases) include Parkinson’s disease, cancers of the bladder, kidney, liver, and esophagus, infertility issues, and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, among others.
The physiological and psychological damages endured by the victims are by no means trivial. This is why the US government, under President Biden’s administration, passed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act in August 2022. This means plaintiffs can sue the Federal government, and it is expected that the Camp Lejeune water contamination settlement amounts could range anywhere between $25,000 and $1 million.
This is one case where the Federal government made an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Does this mean that plaintiffs can file a lawsuit however they like? No, suing the government is a long and tedious process, especially without a reliable attorney.
The plaintiffs must be careful of at least two important things – the statute of limitations and the administrative claims filing process. The statute of limitations is the deadline within which a lawsuit may be filed – it is two years from the date of the enactment of the Bill (August 2022). Moreover, plaintiffs cannot directly file a lawsuit; they must first file an administrative claim with the US Navy, and if the same is not resolved within six months of filing, the plaintiff may proceed to file a lawsuit.
The Moral Debate Surrounding This Legal Doctrine
If you’re offended at the idea of the Federal government only being sued upon its own consent, you’re not alone. The opponents of this doctrine believe that it should be abolished because the government can (and does) perform wrongful acts and often gets away with them because there is no way to challenge its authority in the court.
Take the Camp Lejeune case as an example – the water contamination was discovered by the US Navy in 1982, but the contaminated wells were not shut down till 1985. Not to mention the Federal government granted the victims the right to file a claim after decades of the disaster. Even now, the lawsuit is proceeding so slowly through the court that plaintiffs on borrowed time are afraid their case may never see its settlement daylight.
However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not so much a matter of moral uprightness as it is about a peculiar truth – the monarch (or the Federal government in this case) is, by no means, above the law but is the law(giver). Under its office, there is no higher authority to judge this entity unless it offers its consent. The same would hold true for every petty manor or household – one cannot be judged in a court where there is none above their own unless they voluntarily put themselves on trial.
Parting Thoughts
The debate surrounding the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity may last indefinitely. After all, governance is never an easy and homogenous task. However, it may be safely concluded that this immunity only makes sense when the ruling party is proven to be just and upright in all their dealings.
If not, it gets reduced to an excuse or justification for wrongdoings committed on the grounds of public policy. In such a case, despite presenting all actionable elements of a claim, the liability can be easily waived. As of now, the legal system is watching with bated breath whether the US Navy will get its act together and resolve claims and what the Federal government is willing to offer for Camp Lejeune lawsuit settlements.
