Sovereign Immunity.
.
34 U.S. Code § 20932. Immunity for good faith conduct.
The Federal Government, jurisdictions, political subdivisions of jurisdictions, and their agencies, officers,employees, and agents shall be immune from liability for good faith conduct under this subchapter.
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20932
.
STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND TORT LIABILITY IN ALL 50 STATES
Sovereign or governmental immunity concern themselves with the various legal doctrines or statutes that provide federal, state, or local governments immunity from tort-based claims, as well as exceptions to or waivers of that immunity. Generally, a state government is immune from tort suits by individuals under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Local governments, municipalities, and political subdivisions of the state are immune from tort suits by virtue of governmental immunity, because the state grants them immunity, usually in its constitution. … The common law origins of sovereign immunity can be traced back to the notion that the king made the laws, and thus anything the king did was necessarily legal. The doctrine was thought to pass through to the several states before the founding of this country. …
A compromise doctrine subsequently developed at common law, whereby government officers could be held liable for the negligent performance of ministerial functions (operational acts involving carrying out policies), but not for discretionary functions (those involving policy setting and decision making).
… In many jurisdictions, government officials still enjoy immunity from liability in connection with the performance of their discretionary or governmental functions and acts. On the other hand, liability arising out of the negligent performance of a proprietary or ministerial act by a governmental official is not granted immunity. The doctrine of sovereign immunity varies from state-to-state but is usually contained either in a statutory framework (such as a Tort Claims Act) or within judicial and case decisions. Excluded from the doctrine are cities and municipalities, which are considered to be mere creatures of the legislature, and which have no inherent power and must exercise delegated power strictly within the limitations prescribed by the state legislature. As such, by default, municipalities are liable for their actions unless shielded by state law.
Source: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/STATE-SOVEREIGN-IMMUNITY-AND-TORT-LIABILITY-CHART.pdf
.
“Qualified Immunity”.
.
The phrase “good faith” can/has been socio-politically “stretched” to include promoting harm and death:
Unintended but foreseeable, this transition exposed users to drastically higher risk of overdose because of the lack of regulation over the contents, quality, and dosage in black market opioid products. … after remaining largely stable for years, overdose deaths involving heroin spiked rapidly, tripling between 2010 and 2015. … These increases in harm were as predictable as they are disastrous. … As this crisis has evolved, the iatrogenic risk to the health of people who use drugs was not just foreseeable, but in some cases directly foreseen by policy-makers. One of the most shocking articulations of this came from Pennsylvania’s former Physician General, who recently remarked, “We knew that [drug user transition to the black market] was going to be an issue, that we were going to push addicts in a direction that was going to be more deadly. But … you have to start somewhere”. This statement is emblematic of the belief that decisive action is more important than reducing overall societal harm. … seemingly widespread, this sentiment is inimical to both public health scientific and ethical norms.
Source: “Today’s fentanyl crisis: Prohibition’s Iron Law, revisited”; Beletsky, Davis; 2017
