This doesn’t seem like a fiscally smart move for the country. Unless…maybe balancing the budget isn’t what these shenanigans are all about.
7 Likes
The government employees and others going through economic hardship can bring suit against Musk. The Qualified Immunity also includes breaking statutory rights.
Yes, qualified immunity can protect government officials from lawsuits alleging violations of statutory law, but only if the law violated wasn’t “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Yes, special government employees (SGEs) can have a degree of protection from legal actions, primarily through a doctrine called “qualified immunity,” which shields them from liability unless their actions violated a clearly established constitutional right.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
- Qualified Immunity:
This doctrine protects government officials, including SGEs, from individual lawsuits unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, and the right was known to be violated at the time of the action.
- Purpose of Qualified Immunity:
It balances the need to hold public officials accountable with the need to shield them from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.
- Not Absolute:
Qualified immunity is not absolute; it can be overcome if the official’s actions were clearly unlawful and violated a clearly established right.
- Examples of Officials Protected:
This protection applies to various government officials, including law enforcement officers, prison guards, and other administrators.
- Judges and Prosecutors:
Judges and prosecutors, in certain contexts, may have absolute immunity, meaning they are immune from civil lawsuits even if their actions were unconstitutional.
- SGEs and Ethics:
SGEs are subject to specific ethics rules and regulations, and they may receive approval and waivers from their determining official regarding certain actions.
- Westfall Act:
Federal employees, including SGEs, are protected under the Westfall Act, which allows the government to substitute itself as the defendant in lawsuits against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.
- Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (FELRTCA):
This act extended absolute immunity for common law torts to all federal employees, regardless of whether the conduct at issue was discretionary…
Trump told Congress that Musk runs DOGE — and the lawyers noticed
Donald Trump created more headaches for the White House by again saying that Elon Musk is leading the DOGE office.
The general rule at common law was that in order for a government official to be protected by absolute immunity for common law torts, not only did the official have to be acting within the outer perimeter of his/her official duties, but the conduct at issue also had to be discretionary in nature. Westfall v. Irwin, 484 U.S. 292, 297-298 (1988). In enacting the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (FELRTCA), Congress abrogated this common law rule and extended absolute immunity for common law torts to all federal employees regardless of whether the conduct at issue was discretionary. See United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991). FELRTCA confers such immunity by making the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for all common law torts committed by federal employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). However, the immunity conferred by FELRTCA does not extend or apply to suits against federal employees for violation of the Constitution or federal statutes. Thus, government officials sued for constitutional torts continue to be protected only by qualified immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2). See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978). Where applicable, qualified immunity protects an official from trial and the burdens of litigation. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
3 Likes
I am taxed to the full extent of the existing law. Financial firms send all financial info directly to the IRS. Ain’t no way to hide anything. And I don’t begrudge the tax paid. What I do begrudge is other, more favored people being able to ( both legally, and fraudulently ) pay less than the rest of us proportionally have to pay. Cutting the IRS plays right into this. Anybody who believes this is a good thing either is part of the favored class, or they believe in fairy tales that the Musk/Trump admin spin. We all know where Trump stands on paying taxes, his lack of transparency in fighting tooth and nail to release data that other Presidents before him have willingly released, tells us everything we need to know about him.
Deeper into the Aristocracy we go. We might just be crowning a King before to long.
6 Likes
YES YES YES YES!!!
This move is the most obvious proof that the whole push of the majority of Congress and the Executive is a SCAM upon mostly clueless innumerate working rubes. And they have forced the IRS to not give tax return calculations to the people cost free, forcing them to waste money on the leeching tax return services.
5 Likes