A correct assessment, unless the damage is done intentionally - the King can do no wrong:
Sovereign immunity prevents suits against the United States without its consent and precludes district courts' jurisdiction. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212, 103 S.Ct. 2961, 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983). “Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). Although the FTCA constitutes a waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity that grants jurisdiction to the district courts, such jurisdiction is limited to particular circumstances. See Flechsig v. United States, 991 F.2d 300, 303 (6th Cir.1993). The FTCA defines this jurisdictional scope. Id. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) provides that district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims against the United States for damages caused by the negligence of federal employees while acting within the scope of their employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private individual, would be liable under state law. Id.
However, the jurisdiction allowed by the FTCA is subject to a host of enumerated exceptions listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2680. At issue here is § 2680(c), which states that the waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to “[a]ny claim arising in respect of ... the detention of any goods, merchandise or other property by any officer of customs or excise of any other law enforcement officer.” This is known as the “detention-of-goods” exception.
Motors Ins. Corp. v. U.S. 2011 WL 4506103, 2 (E.D.Mich.) (E.D.Mich.,2011)
A correct assessment, unless the damage is done intentionally - the King can do no wrong:
We went to war over this concept. I guess we need to do it again.