3 ms·

I think it's incredible the TSA would even advance such an argument.

robertlagrant 3y ago
(Note the headline appears misleading - this is not about staff being able to do what they want, but about whether or not TSA can be sued for damages.)
- watwut 3y ago
  It seems like TSA actually made that argument "TSA has argued that, even if all of the allegations in Ms. Leuthauser’s complaint are true, the TSA and its employees have absolute impunity. Regardless of what “torts”, even rape, TSA checkpoint staff commit against travelers, the government claims that Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits or consider claims against them."
busterarm 3y ago
Regular LEOs advance the qualified immunity argument all of the time... Qualified Immunity/Harlow v. Fitzgerald is up there among the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time and desperately needs to be reversed.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > LEOs advance the qualified immunity argument all of the time This isn't that. Qualified immunity "grants government officials...immunity" [1]. Sovereign immunity is immunity for a state itself [2]. In 1946, the U.S. waived its sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act [3] under certain circumstances. This case was about whether those circumstances were met. The court found it was. That means sovereign immunity is waived and the TSA isn't immune. It has zero bearing on the officer's own culpability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
- mminer237 3y ago
  Qualified immunity is irrelevant here. Rape is in no way a discretionary job task, and a reasonable person would know it's illegal. I think half of people's outrage about qualified immunity is simply not understanding what it is.
aqme28 3y ago
Same. Even if they had won this case, it would be a massive PR blunder.

(Note the headline appears misleading - this is not about staff being able to do what they want, but about whether or not TSA can be sued for damages.)

watwut 3y ago
It seems like TSA actually made that argument "TSA has argued that, even if all of the allegations in Ms. Leuthauser’s complaint are true, the TSA and its employees have absolute impunity. Regardless of what “torts”, even rape, TSA checkpoint staff commit against travelers, the government claims that Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear lawsuits or consider claims against them."

busterarm 3y ago

Regular LEOs advance the qualified immunity argument all of the time... Qualified Immunity/Harlow v. Fitzgerald is up there among the worst SCOTUS decisions of all time and desperately needs to be reversed.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> LEOs advance the qualified immunity argument all of the time This isn't that. Qualified immunity "grants government officials...immunity" [1]. Sovereign immunity is immunity for a state itself [2]. In 1946, the U.S. waived its sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act [3] under certain circumstances. This case was about whether those circumstances were met. The court found it was. That means sovereign immunity is waived and the TSA isn't immune. It has zero bearing on the officer's own culpability. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act
mminer237 3y ago
Qualified immunity is irrelevant here. Rape is in no way a discretionary job task, and a reasonable person would know it's illegal. I think half of people's outrage about qualified immunity is simply not understanding what it is.

aqme28 3y ago

Same. Even if they had won this case, it would be a massive PR blunder.