4 ms·

It specifically names the NSA and the DOJ as defendants. So while that is not against "The Government" as some single entity, it is against two government agenc

It specifically names the NSA and the DOJ as defendants. So while that is not against "The Government" as some single entity, it is against two government agencies. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that is different. But as a lay-person, that sounds like suing the government to me.

mpyne 13y ago
Bargaining units have been known to sue government agencies. I'm not sure whether that's under a provision of law where the government consents to be sued, or whether it's because you can sue a specific agency.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The U.S. has waived sovereign immunity in a number of contexts. In particular, Congress has broadly waived sovereign immunity for contractual claims (subject to their being brought in the Court of Federal Claims).
rayiner 13y ago
It lists the NSA and DOJ as defendants only as to the tort claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress), for which sovereign immunity has been waived pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrook_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrook_v._United_States. For the Bivens claims, it lists only the public officials (Obama, Holder, etc).
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Thanks. I would make a horrible lawyer. None of it makes sense to me.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    So the King of England created the courts to resolve disputes in the kingdom. Sovereign immunity was the idea that the king could not be sued in his own courts. We inherited all that. Here, we don't have a king, but the U.S. is a sovereign entity (think of it conceptually as the entity that "owns" the money in the Treasury and also "owes" the national debt). That entity cannot be sued in its own courts. But even in England, the King would hear certain claims for relief, out of the goodness of his heart. That evolved into the modern idea that the U.S. can consent to be sued, and various statutes of Congress have consented (waived sovereign immunity) for various types of suits. One of those is tort claims (e.g. negligently running over your dog). That's why the DOJ and NSA can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That's a tort and the FTCA waives immunity with respect to many torts. The President, etc, are not the U.S. They're just people. They have certain immunities, but they are not protected by sovereign immunity. But that's not enough. For a suit you also need a cause of action (something has to create your right to bring a specific kind of suit). Usually, it's a statute that gives you the right to sue. The case Bivens says that for certain rights that cannot be vindicated any other way, the Constitution itself creates the necessary cause of action.

mpyne 13y ago

Bargaining units have been known to sue government agencies. I'm not sure whether that's under a provision of law where the government consents to be sued, or whether it's because you can sue a specific agency.

rayiner 13y ago
The U.S. has waived sovereign immunity in a number of contexts. In particular, Congress has broadly waived sovereign immunity for contractual claims (subject to their being brought in the Court of Federal Claims).

rayiner 13y ago

It lists the NSA and DOJ as defendants only as to the tort claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress), for which sovereign immunity has been waived pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrook_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrook_v._United_States. For the Bivens claims, it lists only the public officials (Obama, Holder, etc).

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
Thanks. I would make a horrible lawyer. None of it makes sense to me.
- rayiner 13y ago
  So the King of England created the courts to resolve disputes in the kingdom. Sovereign immunity was the idea that the king could not be sued in his own courts. We inherited all that. Here, we don't have a king, but the U.S. is a sovereign entity (think of it conceptually as the entity that "owns" the money in the Treasury and also "owes" the national debt). That entity cannot be sued in its own courts. But even in England, the King would hear certain claims for relief, out of the goodness of his heart. That evolved into the modern idea that the U.S. can consent to be sued, and various statutes of Congress have consented (waived sovereign immunity) for various types of suits. One of those is tort claims (e.g. negligently running over your dog). That's why the DOJ and NSA can be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That's a tort and the FTCA waives immunity with respect to many torts. The President, etc, are not the U.S. They're just people. They have certain immunities, but they are not protected by sovereign immunity. But that's not enough. For a suit you also need a cause of action (something has to create your right to bring a specific kind of suit). Usually, it's a statute that gives you the right to sue. The case Bivens says that for certain rights that cannot be vindicated any other way, the Constitution itself creates the necessary cause of action.