# Legal question on lawsuits **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 14, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762 "2015-01-14T00:08:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/1 "2015-01-14T00:08:44Z")
Sometimes when people sue a state instead of Smith vs. State of NC, I see a lawsuit that says Smith vs. Jones where Jones is someone who works for the state. Any reason they would name a person in the suit rather than just suing the state? ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/2 "2015-01-14T02:47:51Z")
IANAL. When you sue the government for what the government did / did not do to [allegedly] wrong you, that action / inaction has to arise from some department / agency / unit / office / etc., from within the government. So the lawsuit is directed at the head of said department / agency / unit / office / etc., from within the government. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/3 "2015-01-14T15:31:06Z")
That’s right. Depending on the issues involved, the Attorney General might be the defendant, or the Secretary of Defense, or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (it used to be that the Commissioner’s individual name would be used in the case caption, but since tax cases can drag on and Commissioners come and go, all such cases now refer to him or her just by title): > **[Shaw v. Reno](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_v._Reno)** > > Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in the area of redistricting and racial gerrymandering. After the 1990 census, North Carolina qualified to have a 12th district and drew it in a distinct snake-like manner in order to create a “majority-minority” Black district. From there, Ruth O. Shaw sued this proposed plan with the argument that this 12th district was unconstitutional and violated the Fourteenth Amendment under the clause of equal protection Sh... > **[Hamdi v. Rumsfeld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld)** > > Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority. > It reversed the dismissal by a lower court of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who was ... > **[Gregory v. Helvering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering)** > > Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form. The business purpose doctrine is essentially that if a transaction has no substantial business purpose other than the avoidance or reduction of Federal tax, the tax law will not regard the transaction. The doctrine of substan Ev... There are some civil procedural problems with suing the President himself, but it does happen: > **[Hedges v. Obama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama)** > > Hedges v. Obama\[note 1\] was a lawsuit filed in January 2012 against the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges, challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The legislation permitted the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". A federal c... ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/4 "2015-01-14T19:05:10Z")
There is a doctrine called “sovereign immunity,” which says that the government cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be. Using the federal government as an example, in some areas Congress has allowed the government to be sued. Examples include commercial contracts and negligent torts (e.g., getting run over by a federal prison bus). In cases arising from those areas of law, the plaintiff names “the United States” as the defendant. In other areas of law, sovereign immunity remains a formal bar, and so as a partial legal fiction, the plaintiff sues the presiding federal official, often on the basis that the official is seeking to enforce a law that the plaintiff argues is invalid. Hence the sort of lawsuit captions that the OP has seen. The catch is that this legal fiction generally only extends to suits for some sort of injunction – an order requiring the official to take some action or refrain from taking some action. Sovereign immunity still partially applies, in that the plaintiff cannot receive money damages. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/5 "2015-01-14T19:59:02Z")
Or you could move to Canada, where you can bring lawsuits against the Queen : very classy styles of cause, like: “A. Doper v Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.” ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/6 "2015-01-14T21:59:55Z")
There is also a class of customs cases where, for some godforsaken reason, the government is styled as having sued the item in dispute. This produces cases like “United States v. 5,272 Cans of Tomato Pulp.” > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Or you could move to Canada, where you can bring lawsuits against the Queen : very classy styles of cause, like: “A. Doper v Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada.” Imagine all the cases of musicians suing over royalty disputes: Queen v. Queen, Carole King v. Queen, Prince v. Queen, T. Rex v. E. Regina, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/7 "2015-01-15T06:04:41Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > There is also a class of customs cases where, for some godforsaken reason, the government is styled as having sued the item in dispute. This produces cases like “United States v. 5,272 Cans of Tomato Pulp.”… Asset forfeitures are the same. When I was a summer law clerk for the local U.S. Attorney’s Office, I wrote a memo on those cases, which rejoiced in such names as _United States v. One 1991 Ford Fairmount, United States v. $5673.03 in U.S. Currency_ and _United States v. Eighteen Cotton Candy Machines, Model No. 873A._ Imagine, an entire country ganging up on a car! ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/8 "2015-01-15T06:14:39Z")
Its the old common law concept that you could not sue the crown sans the crowns permission. So the legal fiction was invented to get around that. Most countries have abolished or greatly eased restrictions. Why the US holds onto that I’ll never know. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/9 "2015-01-15T15:58:43Z")
It’s not just a legal fiction. There is often a real distinction involved. In many cases where you’re suing the government, you’re making the claim that some person who works for the government didn’t do their job correctly. Let’s say that John Smith, a TSA agent searching your luggage at the airport, spills a cup of coffee on your laptop and shorts it out. You file a lawsuit. You’re not going to argue that the Transportation Security Administration or the United States government spilled that coffee. You want to make the opposite point and argue that the TSA and the government prohibit its employees from damaging people’s property. The person you’re suing is John Smith, who you will be arguing damaged your property and did so in a manner that violated TSA policy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/10 "2015-01-15T16:14:35Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Its the old common law concept that you could not sue the crown sans the crowns permission. So the legal fiction was invented to get around that. Most countries have abolished or greatly eased restrictions. Why the US holds onto that I’ll never know. Because it’s not a legal fiction here. The states cannot be sued for money damages in federal courts. Their _officials_ may be sued for injunctive relief from violations of federal law, though. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-on-lawsuits/709762/11 "2015-01-15T16:22:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s not just a legal fiction. There is often a real distinction involved. In many cases where you’re suing the government, you’re making the claim that some person who works for the government didn’t do their job correctly. > > Let’s say that John Smith, a TSA agent searching your luggage at the airport, spills a cup of coffee on your laptop and shorts it out. You file a lawsuit. > > You’re not going to argue that the Transportation Security Administration or the United States government spilled that coffee. You want to make the opposite point and argue that the TSA and the government prohibit its employees from damaging people’s property. > > The person you’re suing is John Smith, who you will be arguing damaged your property and did so in a manner that violated TSA policy. Thats different. Thats an action in Tort. The Tort is committed against you by John Smith and you do sue him. Now because he probably has about $50 in the bank, he is not really worth suing, so you sue the TSA, [claiming they are vicariously liable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability) because he was working for and under their direction at the time, they are responsible for damages caused. This is an example of an action for negligence as \*\*Tom Tildrum \*\*stated. Most cases against the sovereign occur when the Plaintiff is claiming that a Government official acted outside of the scope of his powers, failed to act when he should have, acted in an unreasonable manner, failed to follow procedures, or act was barred by some superior law. In that case in most countries, the action is brought against the officer who is doing the unlawful act and his official title is used. If for example, in Nosuchland, \*\*AK84 \*\*is being deported by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to his powers under the Fuck Foreigners Act 2015, then the a challenge to the deportation order (if competant) will be titled, **AK84 v Secretary Interior**. In the US it will be AK84 v \