Opinion ID: 697251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government v. The Government

Text: 6 The FLRA next contends that there is no sovereign immunity in the 'government-against-government' situation before us because the doctrine of sovereign immunity was designed for the purpose of protecting the government from litigation initiated by a source outside the government's direct control--its citizens, and not to protect one Government agency from litigation initiated by another. This argument invokes an unduly circumscribed notion of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Cf. Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 511 (D.C.Cir.1983) (setting forth three policy bases of sovereign immunity). Not even the FLRA's account of the doctrine, however, suggests that the sovereign is immune only to lawsuits brought by private parties, and not to a suit such as this, brought by a government official acting for the benefit of private parties. See United States v. Horn, 29 F.3d 754, 761 (1st Cir.1994) (sovereign immunity stands as an obstacle to virtually all direct assaults against the public fisc, save only those incursions from time to time authorized by Congress). Hence, the Army enjoys sovereign immunity in this instance unless the Congress has waived it, which is the thrust of the FLRA's final argument.