Does the sovereign immunity clause prevent the federal government from suing states through the federal court in any situation? The sovereign immunity refers to the fact that the government cannot be sued without its consent. Overview Sovereign immunity was derived from British common law doctrine based on the idea that the King could do no wrong. In the United States, sovereign immunity typically applies to the federal government and state government, but not to municipalities. Federal and state governments, however, have the ability to waive their sovereign immunity. The federal government did this when it passed the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waived federal immunity for numerous types of torts claims. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity Does the sovereign immunity clause prevent the federal government from suing states through the federal court in any situation? Also, does it prevent the federal government suing states in their own courts or only the federal court? I understand that people can't sue governments and states, but I am wondering if this restriction applies to the federal government as well. The other question is whether there are exceptions to this sovereign immunity.
No. As a superior sovereign, the United States can sue states in federal court without restriction. I’m not sure if that would apply in state court, but the federal government doesn’t generally file cases in state court to begin with. States can also sue each other in federal court, having waived their immunity to lawsuits brought by other states when they agreed to Article III of the Constitution (although Congress has said that these lawsuits must be filed directly in the Supreme Court).
As @James K indicated in a comment: Private law involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts and torts, (as it is called in the common law), and the law of obligations (as it is called in civil legal systems). It is to be distinguished from public law, which deals with relationships between both natural and artificial persons (i.e., organizations) and the state, including regulatory statutes, penal law and other law that affects the public order. In general terms, private law involves interactions between private individuals, whereas public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population. Source: Wikipedia The effect of section 156 is that anyone adversely affected by a public authority's failings under Part 11, Chapter 1 cannot sue: any redress is by way of judicial review. The Explanatory Note to section 156 offers this example: A local council fails to give due regard to the requirements of the public sector equality duty when deciding to stop funding a local women’s refuge. An individual would not be able to sue the local council as a result and claim compensation. She would need to consider whether to pursue judicial review proceedings.
States have a general police power, meaning that they can pass laws about whatever they want unless there's a specific reason they can't. A state does not have to give special justification for why something is in the realm of stuff they can regulate; someone challenging it has to say what specific section of the Constitution it violates. For a time, the Due Process clause of the US Constitution was considered to imply freedom of contract. This time ended in the 1930s. The doctrine of a constitutionally protected freedom of contract is pretty much completely dead. A state can't abridge the freedom of contract for no reason, but that's because just about any law needs some reason to be allowed. The level of review is that the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest; this is not a very demanding level of review. Source State bar associations are given power by laws making it illegal to practice law without being a member of the bar and requiring licensed lawyers to comply with bar rules. State bars that control admission to practice are generally government agencies (specifically, agencies of the court system). When the state bar is not a government agency, attorney discipline and licensing is handled by a government agency (lawyers might have to join the bar, but the bar has to accept licensed lawyers as members; the bar's power in these cases is limited to recommendations to the courts).
More or less, but this manual gives details on the "less" part, as interpreted by the US State Department. See The 1963 Vienna Consular treaty for the general agreement. Facilities derive immunity from their relationship to consular personnel and their duties. That means that in some cases, a consulate has no immunity. Diplomatic agents (such as ambassadors) and their families enjoy total immunity. However, some staff only enjoy "official acts" immunity. Immunities only apply to foreign nationals of the sending nation, and not to citizens or permanent residents of the US. Quite often, nations have consular offices outside the capital manned by locals with an interest in the sending nation, and they may carry out business in their own home. The individuals do not have regular consular immunity, they have only official acts immunity, and the premise where they do their business is not unsearchable, unless the premise is used only for official consular business (thus, not their own homes). Under the Vienna treaty, "consular premises" is a term of diplomatic art, referring to a subset of consulates, as the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post An honorary consul may uses his home for conducting consular business, but it is not immune from search (it is a de facto consulate, but does not qualify as a "consular premise" in the sense defined by the convention). Since such a consul does not enjoy absolute immunity, his residence is not un-enterable, as would be the case for an ambassador or regular consul.
The US Supreme Court only has jurisdiction in federal matters. So if someone is suing under federal law, or there is a constitutional question, the Supreme Court is the place to go for a definitive answer. However, states have their own laws. The Supreme Court cannot tell New York that it must apply the attractive nuisance doctrine, as it is neither a matter of federal law nor a constitutional matter. New York is free to make its own laws on the subject, and the New York courts are free to interpret those laws as they see fit. In fact, federal courts are required to defer to New York's interpretation if New York's laws apply to the case, even if the case is in federal court for some reason (like diversity of parties.) See the Erie doctrine (which, coincidentally, involves yet another case about railroad injuries.)
Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials (including police) from civil liability in §1983 suits. Anderson v. Creighton describes the legal standard - objective legal reasonableness. There is no condition that would strip an officer of civil immunity and open him up to criminal liability because the criminal charges could attach regardless of the disposition of civil liability. I say "could" because who is going to charge and prosecute the crime? The CATO Institute tracks police misconduct. Not all misconduct is criminal, but reading through their site will give you an idea of why it is difficult to determine when and why cops are charged with crimes. Only a small fraction of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies actually track their own misconduct in a semi-public manner, and even when they do, the data they provide is generic and does not specify what misconduct occurred, who did it, and what the end result was.
How can incitement of imminent lawless action not be constitutionally protected? The short answer to your question is &quot;because the Supreme Court of the United States said so.&quot; In Brandenburg v. Ohio SCOTUS found that the Constitution protects speech that calls for lawless action in the abstract but does not protect speech &quot;directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action&quot;. The court's per curiam opinion seems to treat the decision as self-evident - it's quite short after discussing the facts of the case. However, Justice William O. Douglas wrote a concurring opinion (his &quot;caveat&quot;) that discussed and was critical of previous decisions in such cases, including the use of the 'clear and present danger test', so his opinion is useful for a brief history of First Amendment judgments to that point (Brandenburg). The Declaration of Independence is not law. Following &quot;a history of repeated injuries and usurpations&quot; and failures to reach political settlements it asserts a moral right to overthrow the tyranny of the British crown. It alludes to rights, it does not &quot;enshrine&quot; or create a legal right that the judiciary can interpret. Judges might refer to the Declaration in their judgments, not using it as legal authority but an articulation of fundamental values.
Yes, it Could A state can repeal or modify its laws against any particular crime, or just decline, as a matter of policy, to enforce such laws. It is in my view quite unlikely that a state would do this in the case of murder, but legally it could. Such action by a state would not affect the federal murder statute is at 18 USC 1111. But that only applies under a rather limited set of situations. According to &quot;When is murder a federal offense?&quot; it applies when: The murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official (for example, an agent of the FBI, TSA, or ATF),1 the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official. the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official (for example, the President, a Supreme Court Justice, a member of Congress, or the murder of a federal judge) the killing is committed during a bank robbery [or other Federal crime]. the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea (for example, on a vessel that is engaged in interstate commerce per the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution). the murder was designed to influence a court case. the killing takes place on federal property (for example, on national parks or a Native American reservation). The vast majority of murder cases do not come under the current Federal law.