Why does U.S. government have civil liability for the Parkland shooting?
<p>The U.S. federal government has <a href="https://www.nbc29.com/2021/11/23/families-parkland-shooting-victims-settle-lawsuit-against-fbi/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">apparently entered a 9-figure financial settlement of civil claims by victims of the 2018 shooting in Parkland, Florida</a>.  (The civil lawsuit alleged government liability because the FBI failed to investigate a tip about the shooter preparing the attack.)</p>
<p>Doesn't the federal government enjoy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sovereign immunity</a> to such claims?  Or did the government waive its immunity in this case?</p>
<p>This seems particularly odd given that, in addition to sovereign immunity, SCOTUS has found (e.g., <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Warren v. District of Columbia</a></em>) that law enforcement officials have no specific &quot;duty to protect&quot; or liability for failures to act.  (Related Q&amp;A here: <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/26295/was-the-officer-assigned-to-parkland-school-legally-obligated-to-intervene">Was the officer assigned to Parkland school legally obligated to intervene?</a>)</p>
<p>(Interestingly, <a href="https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-stoneman-douglas-one-incident-20200924-cq2cgu56wzevpi6eqm7s5zf7jq-story.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Florida state has a law by which it grants a limited waiver of sovereign immunity with a $300k limit on damages</a>.)</p>
<p>I also just found that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/fbi-dylann-roof-charleston-lawsuit/2021/10/28/87c37102-37fd-11ec-91dc-551d44733e2d_story.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">last month the federal government paid an $88MM settlement for an administrative failure that allowed the 2015 Charleston, South Carolina shooter to buy a weapon</a>.</p>

<p>The settlement was a politically motivated act to provide <em>de facto</em> disaster relief and express a moral apology in a cash that there is no plausible way that the U.S. would lose if it litigated the case on the merits.</p>
<p>The articulated basis for making the payment would not survive a seriously argued dispositive motion from the United States government, either on behalf of the U.S. government itself, or against the federal law enforcement officials involved under <em>Bivens</em>.</p>
<p>A complaint making such a claim would barely survive a motion for a Rule 11 sanction for making a frivolous claim if the government pushed the point, and then, only on the theory that it advanced a good faith argument for change in the law, not on the theory that it was supported by existing law.</p>
<p>The Parkland case was considerably weaker than the Charleston shooter of 2015 case even, because Parkland involved a discretionary law enforcement decision, while Charleston arguably involved a non-discretionary administrative matter (although the government probably could have won that case as well).</p>

united-states civil-law governmental-liability immunity