zlacker

So then flip the question, why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?

>>SkyBel+(OP)
That's what I'm saying, is that they shouldn't. And that probably nobody should, because legal recourse is essential, even if it's open to abuse.

>>SkyBel+(OP)
I think the idea was that the government is a big target and it hurts everyone when it is the subject of nuisance suits. Whereas an individual is less likely to be targeted.

>>SkyBel+(OP)
I think you've got it backwards: the government itself isn't immune, but individual government employees are. In other words, you can sue the state of Utah over its policy, but not the individual employees implementing that policy.

>>SkyBel+(OP)
why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?

Under the centuries-old principle of sovereign immunity, the government can simply choose not to be liable for anything at all. Sovereign immunity is the default for most countries now, and throughout history.

The US and the countries of the EU are relatively unique in allowing themselves to be sued for damages for their failures.