12 Facts About Sovereign immunity

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts.

Sovereign immunity is the original forebear of state immunity based on the classical concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign could not be subjected without his or her approval to the jurisdiction of another.

Landmark case which set a precedent for challenging broad Crown Sovereign immunity and established tests for the applicability of state laws on the Commonwealth was Henderson v Defence Housing Authority in 1997.

Sovereign immunity was being prosecuted by the Attorney General of Quebec for misappropriation of public funds but invoked royal immunity on the basis that "the Queen can do no wrong".

Sovereign immunity was eventually found guilty and sentenced to 18 months in jail but was granted conditional release after serving six months.

Related searches

China's view is that sovereign immunity is a lawful right and interest that their enterprises are entitled to protect.

In 2011, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled that absolute sovereign immunity applies in Hong Kong, as the Court found that Hong Kong, as a Special Administrative Region of China, could not have policies on state immunity that was inconsistent with China.

In Byrne v Ireland, the Irish Supreme Court declared that sovereign immunity had not survived the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, and that accordingly the state could be sued for and held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its servants and agents.

The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.

In Hans v Louisiana, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent.

Sometimes referred to the States' immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity"[, ] [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment.

Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.