are state governments exempt from lawsuits?
114556
It is a very complicated question.  State do have sovereign immunity from suits claiming that they have violated federal law, unless the states have waived that immunity as they sometimes do.  This immunity shields them from paying damages for past acts, though not against injunctive relief to prevent the actions in the future.  This immunity does not apply to counties, cities or smaller political divisions in a state.\n\nBeginning about 10 years ago the Supreme Court started issuing a series of opinions greatly strengthening the immunity enjoyed by states, as part of the conservative federalist legal revolution.\n\nTHis is a complicated and changing area of US law, so the precise answer you are interested in may depend on the facts involved.
1175334
This is a very good question.  I am responding so that I can keep it on file.  \n\nI found one state that does, Florida.  See the link below:
348829
It means that the government and its agents cannot be sued for acts done in the official course of their duties.
149091
There are both state and federal appellate courts.  The term appellate is not usually used in the federal system; they go by districts.\n\nThe state appellate court is where you go to appeal from a decision at the Superior Court, which is the basic county court of first jurisdiction for most cases.  Small cases may be handled in a municipal court, or even a small claims court.  \n\nA case is a state case or a federal case because of facts about the case from the beginning, not through an appeal process.  The exception is the United States Supreme Court, which is the court of final jurisdiction for all cases, state or federal.  (But they won't take a state case unless it has Constitutional aspects.  They don't have to take any case they don't want to.)\n\nDid I clear things up, or muddy the water further?
1046892
No court has ruled that the US does not have sovereign immunity.  The US may, by statute, waive sovereign immunity in certain types of cases, but courts will not find a waiver unless it is clear that the statute waived immunity.\n\nLikewise, a US State has sovereign immunity and again waiver will not be implied, but must be explicit.\n\nHave you tried naming the Secretary of HUD and the corresponding Hawaiian official?   If you name the individuals, the court may be able to grant you injunctive relief as to future events and actions, but will not be able to grant you damages for past actions.
309605
It's a states rights issue.  It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government
824764
i am an atty in nebraska so i don't know the law specifically in your state (unless it's neb, of course) but public officials are governed by specific statutes. normally the law is the same in that all people must be honest, not hide important facts ( in contract law) and not hurt people (in tort law), but in old english law the king and country could not be sued so gov't officials were protected. but all states passed laws subjecting themselves to suit, but the rules are very specific when it is allowed, and what notice requirements are necessary. the statute of limitations is also different. good luck
127066
No. \n\nBy suing a person is merely asserting a claim and requesting that the matter be considered by a (hopefully) impartial Court of Law. The right to seek remedies to injuries and damages in inherent in a democracy. \n\nDenying services to people who sue the government is punishing them for merely asserting their rights.
777693
Federal law is created by Congress (statutory) and federal courts (federal common law). State law is created by each state legislature (statutory) and state courts (state common law).\n\nUnder Article VI of the Constitution (Supremacy Clause), federal law (statutory or court-made) preempts state law.\n\nThe answer to your underlying question comes from the interaction of the 10th Amendment with Article I of the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States [federal govt] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."\n\nBasically, the federal government is one of limited enumerated powers. Unless the federal government is authorized to pass laws in a certain area, they cannot. Only the states can. \n\nThat's why most criminal laws, most family laws, most general behavioral laws -- all are state laws. Unless an area involves one of the limited federal topics (interstate commerce, the military, the post office, copyrights, etc -- see Article I Section 8), then the federal govt has no authority to pass the laws.\n\nAnd because each state is sovereign within their own jurisdiction, each can pass whatever laws they want, as long as those state laws do not conflict with federal laws or the federal Constitution. That's why laws vary by state.
687550
That's not how the Sovereign Immunity Doctrine works.  Sovereign Immunity is a defense against liability, but it does not bar the suit from being filed in court.  \n\nFurther, a agent of the state (such as a teacher) can be sued personally rather than in their official capacity.  If a suit is filed against John Smith as an individual, the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity does not apply.
133690
For small claims, yes.  The small claims court in your state will not have personal jurisdiction over that person.
931909
It's not the governments job to "work" for me. Crimes that occur on the state level are prosecuted on the federal level.
364950
I doubt the state could be sued for negligence.  We live in a country that you are innocent till proven guilty.  For the innocent that are charged this is good.  For the innocent no charged the guilty that are free to walk this sucks.
757327
It would be a good idea to look up the 11th amendment to the US Constitution. I have and am completely without ideas as it is a hard one to capture in pictures. It gives citizens of any state the right to sue a state.
493493
Not at all; marriages and divorces are overseen by the state.
978952
Yes. You can insist, adamantly, to your state legislature that they not do it. And if they don't listen to you then, if your state allows for citizen-driven petitions, you can amend your state constitution to disallow it.\n\nMe, I don't care. Like the guy said, both sides do it so therefore it is fair.
299287
As a rule, you have to raise every issue you have in a case, whether it is a state or federal court. You can't wait to see if you lose in state court on state issues and then go to federal court to try again. The court has "pendent jurisdiction" over the other court's issues. It can make a difference what the issue is, though, since state courts may not have the jurisdiction needed, for bankruptcy, for example.