Attorneys and other legal-savvy individuals may have cringed at my recent article titled: “Taitz tries tort tomorrow; Judge jabs Johnson” because what Orly Taitz filed was not a tort claim. I don’t know exactly what to call it, but Taitz was not suing for damages as a result of her getting sick, allegedly as a resulting of treating undocumented immigrant children. The ever-helpful Judge Andrew S. Hanen, as I heard the report from Tomtech, told Taitz that the only way she could gain standing was a a victim in a tort claim. The Federal Tort Claims Act gives an injured party the right to sue the government and includes a waiver of sovereign immunity. One of the problems Taitz will have is that there is an exception in the FTCA that immunizes the United States for acts or omissions of its employees that involve policy decisions (which would seem at the heart of the matter here).
Plus, Taitz is going to have to establish standing, and to do that she will have to show:
- an injury in fact (her getting sick should count)
- a link between defendant’s conduct and her injury
- that the Court can redress her complaint
The first point is fairly easy to show, but how is it possible for Taitz to show why she got sick. People get sick all the time, people who have had no contact with undocumented immigrant children. Doctors treat sick people all the time, and healthcare practitioners generally take reasonable precautions against infection, such as the use of masks, gloves and hand washing. The final point is that it would be purely speculative to assert that Orly would get sick again unless immigration policy changed, so I do not see how the Court could grant the extreme relief Orly Taitz demanded (non transportation of children and quarantine) to redress the damage of her getting sick. The Court cannot provide relief contrary to the law, and this writer thinks that what the government is doing in the way of releasing the children is what the law demands.