Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Advocate)   NC: You can't sue our health care plan because we have sovereign immunity. U.S. District Court: You accepted federal funds, so you waived sovereign immunity. SCOTUS: "No comment"   (advocate.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Supreme Court of the United States, United States, Appeal, behalf of several state employees, Supreme Court, North Carolina State Health Plan, lower court, State officials  
•       •       •

4408 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jan 2022 at 6:24 PM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



25 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-19 11:55:27 AM  
The only reasoning I can come to about how "no discriminating" could possibly be ambiguous concerns gender identity and sexual orientation not being protected classes by federal law, so they were trying to get specifics about what constitutes discrimination for the purposes of getting their Ps & Qs in a row for next time.  The fact that this is STILL an issue in the USA while not in the other richer countries of the world speaks volumes of how antiquated US policies are.
 
2022-01-19 5:20:44 PM  
Feds:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-19 6:27:37 PM  
Laws are only as strong as the willingness to enforce or validate them.
 
2022-01-19 6:33:05 PM  
By the logic of the commerce clause, not selling your products across state lines makes you subject to federal taxes and regulations because you're competing in a market with other companies (or even potentiallycompeting) who do so.  Therefore, selling your product entirely within state borders impacts interstate commerce and puts you under federal jurisdiction.

That translates pretty directly to being a health care provider in a market where state-provided or state-subsidized care is also an option.  Even before the existence of subsidized private exchanges accessible by everyone, other state departments providing health care of any kind to anyone would open this up to federal jurisdiction basically instantly.

And... honestly, this is almost certainly an unnecessary point to bring up since the state and all of its agencies likely use more farking federal money than state money to begin with in North farking Carolina.  The poverty rate and general conditions there are such that I'd believe they didn't have any state tax revenue whatsoever before I'd believe there's a state service operating there without significant federal support.
 
2022-01-19 6:46:20 PM  

RasIanI: Laws are only as strong as the willingness to enforce or validate them.


What happens when the mechanisms intended to enforce them have no intention to do so?
 
2022-01-19 6:48:26 PM  

harleyquinnical: The only reasoning I can come to about how "no discriminating" could possibly be ambiguous concerns gender identity and sexual orientation not being protected classes by federal law, so they were trying to get specifics about what constitutes discrimination for the purposes of getting their Ps & Qs in a row for next time.  The fact that this is STILL an issue in the USA while not in the other richer countries of the world speaks volumes of how antiquated US policies are.


Roughly 30% of our country thinks gay and Trans people aren't people, and another 10% are willing to vote with them regardless of how they treat other people.
 
2022-01-19 6:54:21 PM  
Geeze I hope this lawsuit succeeds and sets some precedent.

I just checked and my coverage under my spouse's insurance as a county employee specifically excludes gender affirming care.
 
2022-01-19 7:01:03 PM  
Marbury something something Madison something something; just send in the troops and arrest these clowns.
 
2022-01-19 7:28:36 PM  
FTFA: State officials contended the plan was protected from such suits because of sovereign immunity, "the legal doctrine that precludes bringing a lawsuit against the state without its consent,"

Ah yes, the modern implementation of the medieval notion "the king can do no wrong."

Except the United States explicitly rejectedkings. Some time ago.

Why is this still a thing?
 
2022-01-19 7:52:29 PM  

tekmo: FTFA: State officials contended the plan was protected from such suits because of sovereign immunity, "the legal doctrine that precludes bringing a lawsuit against the state without its consent,"

Ah yes, the modern implementation of the medieval notion "the king can do no wrong."

Except the United States explicitly rejectedkings. Some time ago.

Why is this still a thing?


Because the U.S. dearly misses a royal family.
 
2022-01-19 7:54:04 PM  

tekmo: FTFA: State officials contended the plan was protected from such suits because of sovereign immunity, "the legal doctrine that precludes bringing a lawsuit against the state without its consent,"

Ah yes, the modern implementation of the medieval notion "the king can do no wrong."

Except the United States explicitly rejectedkings. Some time ago.

Why is this still a thing?


Because it is explicitly in the Constitution, once in the main text and again in the 11th Amendment.  Just because a king did a thing doesn't mean it is verbotten in the US.  Kings also made laws, and the US is not "anarchy foreva!!!!"
 
2022-01-19 7:55:12 PM  
I like saying, "suck it bigots."

I wish I could say it more often.
 
2022-01-19 7:56:04 PM  
Hear that Red States, if you want to discriminate you'll have to reject all Federal money

/have fun trying to pay the light bill
 
2022-01-19 8:12:30 PM  

phalamir: Because [sovereign immunity] is explicitly in the Constitution, once in the main text and again in the 11th Amendment.  Just because a king did a thing doesn't mean it is verbotten in the US.  Kings also made laws, and the US is not "anarchy foreva!!!!"


Explicitly means it's literally stated, as opposed to implied. So where does the Constitution explicitly say "sovereign immunity"?

If it was literally or explicitly stated, I reckon courts probably wouldn't call sovereign immunity a "doctrine."

The Eleventh Amendment says: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign state."

That limits federal jurisdiction in interstate disputes, but it's hardly describing sovereign immunity.
 
2022-01-19 8:51:15 PM  

tekmo: FTFA: State officials contended the plan was protected from such suits because of sovereign immunity, "the legal doctrine that precludes bringing a lawsuit against the state without its consent,"

Ah yes, the modern implementation of the medieval notion "the king can do no wrong."

Except the United States explicitly rejectedkings. Some time ago.

Why is this still a thing?


The idea is the courts are established under the authority of the United States, so you can't use the United States' courts to sue the United States unless the United States lets you.
 
2022-01-19 9:09:18 PM  
Every state accepts federal election funds too. We should sue the shiat out of 19 of them who made voting harder
 
2022-01-19 9:14:18 PM  

2wolves: tekmo: FTFA: State officials contended the plan was protected from such suits because of sovereign immunity, "the legal doctrine that precludes bringing a lawsuit against the state without its consent,"

Ah yes, the modern implementation of the medieval notion "the king can do no wrong."

Except the United States explicitly rejectedkings. Some time ago.

Why is this still a thing?

Because the U.S. dearly misses a royal family.


hips.hearstapps.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-19 9:34:01 PM  

whither_apophis: Hear that Red States, if you want to discriminate you'll have to reject all Federal money

/have fun trying to pay the light bill


But religious rights! States can establish religion! It's the feds who can't!

/and various other wharrgarbl
//some of which might work...????
 
2022-01-19 9:36:22 PM  

tekmo: Except the United States explicitly rejectedkings. Some time ago.

Why is this still a thing?


Because it started and still is mainly used for legitimate purposes.

The purpose is that if the government is executing it's job without the intention of hurting anyone or discriminating against anyone and there are incidental/accidental casualties (not the definition of people literally killed or hurt, but it can include that) they aren't sued every single time.  If it didn't exist every single local, county, state, and the federal government would be bankrupt just responding to lawsuits.

Basically, if a government makes a law or executes their function in good faith they can't be held responsible.  Which is a good thing and keeps the goverent functioning, especially in the sue happy US.

That said I do think it needs to be scaled back and have some sort of limitations.

North Carolina is notorious for using this defense and unfortunately has gotten away with it.  Most recently a videographer spent 10's of thousands of his own dollars doing a deep sea expedition and filming a pirate ship and licensed the footage out to documentaries and the like.  North Carolina just stole the footage and put it on it's tourism page, violating his copyright, and not paying license fees.

NC argued that they had sovereign immunity and were free to just steal his work without compensating him.

The SC, including a couple of the "liberal" judges sided with the state.

That is a bridge too far in my opinion.  There's nothing vital in basic governance to have a travel website, let alone specifically hosting his hard work for free.  In fact, there's nothing about hosting any videos, his or others or their own in executing their governmental functions.  It was a travesty of justice.

Stuff like that needs to be scaled back.

The state having to knock down a structure or a tree on someone's private property for the safety of the community is fine and acceptable.

The state having to encroach on someone's yard to run utilities is fine and acceptable.

The state using some else's work or take their land for something completely irrelevant to the functioning of a government should have some sort of scrutiny and shouldn't be immediately accepted.
 
2022-01-19 10:01:24 PM  
"Today's decision protects the rights of marginalized people, including LGBTQ people and people living with HIV, to seek justice and obtain relief in court if they are subjected to health care discrimination."

I understand their reasoning behind the lgbtq and trans people, they're bigots, but the HIV positive people?  While it is more prominent in the gay community, perfectly straight people with nuclear families can get it from accidental exposure or from their spouse or from their parent when they're born.  How do they justify that?
 
2022-01-19 10:26:13 PM  

dkulprit: "Today's decision protects the rights of marginalized people, including LGBTQ people and people living with HIV, to seek justice and obtain relief in court if they are subjected to health care discrimination."

I understand their reasoning behind the lgbtq and trans people, they're bigots, but the HIV positive people?  While it is more prominent in the gay community, perfectly straight people with nuclear families can get it from accidental exposure or from their spouse or from their parent when they're born.  How do they justify that?


It's another form of discrimination, though. HIV stigma is very, very much a thing.
 
2022-01-20 12:12:09 AM  

tekmo: FTFA: State officials contended the plan was protected from such suits because of sovereign immunity, "the legal doctrine that precludes bringing a lawsuit against the state without its consent,"

Ah yes, the modern implementation of the medieval notion "the king can do no wrong."

Except the United States explicitly rejectedkings. Some time ago.

Why is this still a thing?


Just covered this in my bar review. Basically, it's been waived by both the Feds and the States, with some exceptions usually listed in statute.
 
2022-01-20 1:51:02 PM  

dkulprit: Basically, if a government makes a law or executes their function in good faith they can't be held responsible.


Okay, and courts are the best available place to determine that "if."

That said, the government is an inanimate object. It doesn't do anything. People acting on behalf of the government do things. Sometimes those people do criminal or tortious things.

The entity who issues one's paycheck should not be the single determining factor on whether a criminal or wrongdoer should be legally accountable for their actions or whether they're above the law.

Nobody is supposed to be above the law.

Sovereign immunity doctrines purposefully short-circuit that fundamental truth.
 
2022-01-20 1:52:31 PM  

bglove25: Just covered this in my bar review. Basically, it's been waived by both the Feds and the States, with some exceptions usually listed in statute.


You might want to double-check that.
 
2022-01-20 7:24:25 PM  

tekmo: dkulprit: Basically, if a government makes a law or executes their function in good faith they can't be held responsible.

Okay, and courts are the best available place to determine that "if."

That said, the government is an inanimate object. It doesn't do anything. People acting on behalf of the government do things. Sometimes those people do criminal or tortious things.

The entity who issues one's paycheck should not be the single determining factor on whether a criminal or wrongdoer should be legally accountable for their actions or whether they're above the law.

Nobody is supposed to be above the law.

Sovereign immunity doctrines purposefully short-circuit that fundamental truth.


I typed up a long response with cases, links, all that, but my daughter woke up, had to put my phone down and when I came back to it the other refreshed and I lost everything.

So here's the "abridged" version.

Criminal behavior is one of the ways to get around Sovereign immunity.  In fact, criminal behavior is one of those that automatically disqualifies Sovereign immunity to the point that you CAN TARGET individuals and the state is immune from the lawsuit.  So I think you're misunderstanding Sovereign immunity.  Yes it's named off of and based off of the idea that monarchs are above the law.  But that's not how it actually works here.

Absolute immunity, which is 1 of the 2 types of Sovereign immunity (qualified being the other), does exist but is super, super rare.  Like it is only applied to legislators executing their duties.  Like you can't sue a congressperson for voting on a law or doing their duties.

People can, and do, successfully sue individual actors executing duties on behalf of the state.

The issue is an access to justice more than an issue of agencies/people actually being "immune" from prosecution/lawsuits.  Most people don't have the wherewithal or funds to do so, and not many lawyers have the skill to do so.  But that goes for all levels of the justice system, from criminal to private civil, not just going after the government.  I don't have an answer to that though.  It is a major issue that should be looked into and resolved.

But the idea that individuals have absolute immunity is not the case at all outside of very rare instances where it would be ridiculous to sue anyways. There are multiple ways to defeat Sovereign immunity from legal tests, to things like "stripping doctorine" that automatically disqualifies the actor if the injury arose from an illegal act, comitted by an actor of the state, to constitutional violations at either state or federal level.

So your argument is on semantics of the naming of the doctorine not the actual doctorine.
---------------------------------

But if you're only referencing the issue of police and qualified immunity, I 100% agree with you on.  I don't have an answer for you on that either.  It is somewhat of a tricky subject as there are very legitimate reasons police should be able to execute their jobs without fear of lawsuits.  Like I don't think some child rapist should be able to sue the police because he or she broke their leg while running away from police.  There has to be some sort of happy medium, like the police don't have blanket qualified immunity and instead of person suing having to prove why the police shouldn't receive qualified immunity, the burden would be on the officer to prove why they should have qualified immunity.

But the article and discussion at hand isn't about that, it's about sovereign immunity in general and without it we wouldn't have governments or our taxes would be so high we might as well be serfs because everybody and their mothers would be suing every local, state, and federal government everytime they felt they were wronged.  Either way, Sovereign immunity in the context of the United States doesn't actually mean that they're immune, there are ways to defeat it.

On a side note, police Sovereign (qualified) immunity, we can pthank the Warren and Berger courts for setting the precedent and bar so high that it's almost impossible to sue police.  The same courts that set the most landmark civil rights precedents that ended segregation and gave us Miranda rights.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.