Sovereign immunity

Obama’s Justice Department says that citizens cannot challenge the constitutionality of a law without the government’s consent. No, really:

The Justice Department also argues that the court doesn’t have the right to determine the constitutionality of the law in this case because of “sovereign immunity,” a long-standing legal principle that exempts the government from lawsuits unless the government consents.

Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former computer-crime attorney at the Justice Department, said sovereign immunity usually is applied in lawsuits against the government that seek monetary damages, not in cases disputing the constitutionality of a law.

“I would say this is a puzzling argument,” he said. “There has to be a way to challenge the constitutionality of the law.”

The Justice Department declined to comment on the matter of sovereign immunity.

I that in this case declining to comment indicates a recognition that they haven’t a leg to stand on.

POSTSCRIPT: The administration’s argument arises in a case involving a progressive telephone company (a phrase that I previously would not have thought meaningful), that, for ideological reasons, doesn’t want to comply with a National Security Letter. The company is a peculiar civil-liberty crusader, though. They once tried to have the broadcast license for Fox News revoked.

One Response to Sovereign immunity

  1. DogWalksMan says:

    I thought the z4th Amendment. Says we have the right to redress the government for grievences.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s