Wikipedia: Sovereign immunity in the United States - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
It's less-clear whether the same is true for Customs and Border Patrol.
- § 1514 allows importers to protest CBP decisions on classification, valuation, duties, etc. within 180 days.
- § 1515 then provides that denied protests can be challenged by civil action in the Court of International Trade.
- These sections create the primary administrative exhaustion requirement for customs disputes.
28 U.S.C. § 1581[3] gives the Court of International Trade exclusive jurisdiction over customs matters.
- § 1581(a) specifically grants exclusive jurisdiction over § 1515 actions (denied protests).
- § 1581(i) provides residual jurisdiction over customs-related civil actions against the U.S.
- This exclusive jurisdiction means federal district courts generally cannot hear customs cases.
Tucker Act claims (28 U.S.C. § 1491[4]) allow recovery of improperly collected duties.
- While § 1491 doesn't mention customs, its broad language covering claims "founded upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress" has been interpreted to include illegal exactions.
- Case law (e.g., Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States[5]) recognizes Tucker Act jurisdiction for customs refunds when protest remedies are unavailable or inadequate.
- However, courts generally require exhaustion of protest procedures first, making Tucker Act claims a limited fallback option.
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1514
[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1515
[3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1581
[4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
[5]: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/077/77.F3d....
Sweeping immunity obviously doesn't exist, as evidenced by the court ruling this thread is about. The government gets sued all the time and frequently they have to pay damages.
Remember, the US was explicitly set up to see itself as an adversary. You can read this in practically any of the federalist papers. The founders saw government as a necessary evil and even talked about how democracies often become autocracies by autocrats being freely elected.
It's 250 years into that so yeah, things have changed a lot since then. But it's worth noting that a fair amount of this got embedded into the constitution. So it gets upheld as long as at least one party is adversarial to the other. Interestingly, in many ways this can be maintained even if both parties are adversaries to be people. Clearly something we don't want (cough) but that was by design. 250 years is a pretty good run
What that means for tariffs, will IANAL (pretty sure that's most of us here too). So I don't know. But I do know the gov can't be sued for damages and isn't immune from consequences. That's all I was saying