Opinion ID: 182572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sovereign Immunity/Discretionary Function Exception

Text: The relevant law of sovereign immunity, which the district court correctly summarized, is clear: The United States is immune from suit unless it consents. Congress waived the sovereign immunity of the United States by enacting the FTCA, under which the federal government is liable for certain torts its agents commit in the course of their employment. The United States is, nevertheless, immune if an exception applies. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), the FTCA does not waive immunity for the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused. A two-part test determines when the discretionary function exception applies. First, the conduct at issue must be discretionary, involving an element of judgment or choice. The second requirement is that the judgment at issue be of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. Because the exception's purpose is to prevent judicial second-guessing of government decisions based on public policy considerations, it protects only those judgments grounded in social, economic, and political policy. Riley v. United States, 486 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir.2007) (citations and internal marks omitted). Where the United States has not waived sovereign immunity under the FTCA, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. See Green Acres Enters. v. United States, 418 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir.2005); see also Dykstra v. United States, 140 F.3d 791, 795 (8th Cir.1998) (To the extent an alleged act falls within the discretionary function exception, a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.).