In this case they’re trying to sue the government itself which has sovereign immunity, not qualified. Congress passed a law that allowed some channels past that sovereign immunity but the courts have been very conservative as to how it’s interpreted. That’s the federal torts claims act. One of the key things it doesn’t cover is intentional torts. So if someone though negligence hit you in the mouth and knocked the teeth out, you can sue. If, by contrast, they did it through malice and battery you cannot but you can break through their personal qualified immunity if you could prove malice. Good luck
In before “YoU CaN’T SuE ThE GoVeRnMeNt” /s
Applicability of the federal torts act to sovereign immunity is always a good point of discussion.
Federal torts and also “qualified immunity”.
https://innocenceproject.org/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-qualified-immunity-and-how-it-shields-those-responsible-for-wrongful-convictions/
Something else everyone should know about QI
http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
It has literally no legal basis and the 1982 SCOTUS was unknowingly given the wrong text of the law as passed by Congress.
Holy shit, I missed that. That’s a tectonic change if the Supreme Court can actually be bothered to recognize it.
In this case they’re trying to sue the government itself which has sovereign immunity, not qualified. Congress passed a law that allowed some channels past that sovereign immunity but the courts have been very conservative as to how it’s interpreted. That’s the federal torts claims act. One of the key things it doesn’t cover is intentional torts. So if someone though negligence hit you in the mouth and knocked the teeth out, you can sue. If, by contrast, they did it through malice and battery you cannot but you can break through their personal qualified immunity if you could prove malice. Good luck