Case law

Schermerhorn v. State of Israel

235 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2017

To establish jurisdiction in such a situation, we therefore ask for more than merely a non-frivolous argument. … exceptions to immunity apply).

Astakhov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2023

Sovereign Immunity The doctrine of sovereign immunity, confusing as it may sometimes be, begins with a simple proposition: “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from … And there is a statute and an agency regulation that, in Plaintiff’s view, qualify the agency’s power to charge fees for employment authorization to individuals in Plaintiff’s position. See Pub. L.

Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. Republic of Poland

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2025

Foreign states are generally immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … More is needed to “clearly . . . undermine . . . public confidence in the administration of the law.” TermoRio, 487 F.3d at 938.

United States v. District of Columbia

558 F. Supp. 213 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 1983

Thus, the United States is the real party in interest and clearly has standing to sue to enforce its sovereign rights. … Thus, although these contract provisions establish that USCHS is not an agent of the government they do not effect a finding that the USCHS is a federal instrumentality.

Johnson v. Panetta

953 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2013

The proposed amended complaint, read as a whole, clearly alleges that the amount in controversy is potentially $107,857.46. Id. at ¶ 10. … Count I of the proposed amended complaint clearly states that Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgement Act. Dkt. No. 13, Ex. 2 at ¶ 17.

McDaniel v. State of North Carolina

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2024

Second, even if Plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim, she has failed to establish subject- matter jurisdiction. … “The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.” Id.

Luxepress-Ii Corp. v. Yanukovich

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2020

§ 1605(a)(1), but a court will not find a foreign sovereign waived its immunity unless it “has clearly and unambiguously done so.” World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154, 1162 (D.C. … Therefore, the Decree does not “clearly and unambiguously” waive Ukraine’s sovereign immunity. See World Wide Minerals, Ltd., 296 F.3d at 1162.

Best v. United States

522 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2007

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. … Gaubert, the Supreme Court elaborated on the two-part test it first established in Berkovitz v.

Smalls v. Emanuel

840 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2012

“The FTCA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to some, but not all, torts. Those torts for which the United States retains immunity are enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).” Peter B., 579 F. … Here, the Court agrees with the defendant that Counts V and VI are clearly claims of libel, slander, or misrepresentation. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 13, at 18.

Young-Bey v. Unity Medical Healthcare

217 F. Supp. 3d 304 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2016

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune from suit unless Congress expressly has waived the defense of sovereign immunity by statute. See id. … This is a waiver of sovereign immunity, see United States v.

McFadden v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 2018

,” and “bears only the burden of identifying an accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits.” … “[T]he burden of establishing immunity [is] on the official.” Id. (citing Westfall, 484 U.S. at 299).

McKelvey v. Walters

596 F. Supp. 1317 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 1984

This Court’s findings under the Rehabilitation Act make short shrift of the government’s argument that sovereign immunity bars the plaintiff’s claim for benefits. … Although the plaintiff also asserts equal protection and due process claims, the Court declines to decide these issues under the established principle that unnecessary adjudication of constitutional issues should be avoided

Bloch v. United States Census Bureau

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2010

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Defendant correctly argues that plaintiff’s claims for libel and slander are barred by sovereign immunity. … “When the Bureau needed employees for a [particular] operation, selection parameters, such as geographic location and language skill needs, were entered into a computer program,” id. ¶ 6, and the “best qualified individuals

Fox v. District of Columbia

990 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 1997

Smolla, Federal Civil Rights Acts § 14.04[3](a) (3rd ed. 1997) (" 'Qualified immunity’ ... is the form of official immunity most likely to be applied in § 1983 actions against officials in their individual capacities.... … [A]s a practical matter, 'qualified immunity’ is the workhorse defense of most § 1983 ... cases”). 10 .

Roberts-Gregory v. American Association for the Advancement of Science

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 2026

The Tucker Act’s grant of jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims acts as a waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity. See United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 10 (2012). … Roberts-Gregory’s theory of prior- salary discrimination can establish unlawful discrimination—an issue which has apparently split the Circuit courts. See Rizo v.

Harrison v. Lewis

559 F. Supp. 943 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 1983

and retaining qualified black employees for administrative, professional, and technical support jobs. … , found best or well qualified, certified to the selecting official, and selected.

Henkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2021

Said differently, the Defendants do not enjoy sovereign immunity as to the properly asserted claims in the 1184 case. … Venue is clearly proper for Iran and Syria under § 1391(£)(4) because they are foreign states.

Doe I v. State of Israel

400 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2005

There, the court held that such an individual could qualify as an “instrumentality” under § 1608(b) of the FSIA. … To begin with, plaintiff has failed clearly to allege a criminal enterprise as required under § 1962(b) and § 1962(c).

Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham

19 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2014

Court of Appeals explained that Mayor Williams’s motive had no bearing on the question of immunity: When determining whether an act qualifies for absolute immunity, the court does not inquire … Sovereign immunity requires dismissal of all claims against Mr.

Osgood v. District of Columbia

567 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 1983

Qualified Immunity It is well established that governmental officials have qualified immunity from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for discretionary acts performed in good faith. Wood v. … The purpose of the qualified immunity is to assure decision-makers that “action taken in the good-faith fulfillment of their responsibilities and within the bounds of reason under all the circumstances will not be punished