For decades, the United States has operated under a peculiar contradiction. It calls itself the “land of the free,” yet the very government sworn to protect liberty has been largely immune from accountability when it abuses it. This isn’t a glitch in the system — it’s baked into the legal foundation of the nation. The doctrine of sovereign immunity—the centuries-old idea that “the king can do no wrong”—still shields the federal government from being sued unless Congress explicitly allows it.
This shield has long frustrated victims of government wrongdoing, from unconstitutional detentions to property seizures and immigration enforcement overreach. When victims of ICE misconduct—such as unlawful detention, mistaken deportations, or abuse—try to hold the government accountable, their cases are routinely dismissed. Not because the harm didn’t happen, but because the courts aren’t permitted to hear them.
That injustice is precisely why Congress is now debating measures like the Secure the Border Act of 2023 and the Laken Riley Act. While these bills primarily focus on allowing states and individuals to sue the federal government for failing to enforce immigration laws, they hint at a larger philosophical and legal shift. They tap into something Americans instinctively understand: no government agency should be above the law.
The Founders overthrew a monarchy in part to escape unaccountable power. Yet today, the concept of sovereign immunity keeps Washington insulated from genuine responsibility. If a private citizen violates your rights, you can sue them. If a corporation harms you, you can sue it. But if a federal agency detains you wrongfully or violates your constitutional rights, the government often argues: “We can’t be sued unless we say so.”
That’s an absurd inversion of liberty. Real freedom means the right to seek redress— especially when the government oversteps. A system that allows the state to operate without fear of legal consequence undermines consent, erodes trust, and perpetuates impunity.
Among the most pressing examples of this imbalance is the lack of recourse for victims of ICE misconduct. While immigration enforcement is a legitimate function of any sovereign nation, the manner in which it is carried out must remain bound by constitutional limits. Individuals who are detained unlawfully or mistreated by ICEs deserve their day in court — not a polite reminder that the law protects their abuser.
From a libertarian perspective, this is not about left or right. It’s about limiting state power. It’s about protecting the individual from bureaucratic overreach and asserting that government agents are not a class above the citizens they serve.
Allowing citizens to sue the federal government — whether for ICE misconduct, unlawful detention, or policy negligence — restores an essential check on power. It aligns federal authority with the same moral and legal standards society applies to everyone else.
If liberty means anything, it must mean that no one is untouchable. For too long, Washington has enjoyed legal immunity while ordinary Americans shoulder the fallout of its mistakes. Ending that imbalance isn’t radical; it’s the logical conclusion of what the Constitution promised all along.
It’s time we remind the government: the king, in fact, can do wrong—and must answer for it.