<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rayiner</author><text>The opinion is here (should be up on the CA3 website later today): &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;s000.tinyupload.com&amp;#x2F;index.php?file_id=31076227891884466185&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;s000.tinyupload.com&amp;#x2F;index.php?file_id=310762278918844...&lt;/a&gt;. The relevant discussion starts at 12-13.&lt;p&gt;The gist of the suit is this: Ordinarily, you cannot sue the federal government (sovereign immunity). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims. An exception to that waiver of immunity is where the agent of the government commits an intentional tort (&lt;i&gt;e.g.&lt;/i&gt; federal employee punches you, as opposed to accidentally running over your dog, which would be a negligent tort). However, that exception does not apply to law enforcement officers--under the FTCA, the federal government takes responsibility for the intentional torts of law enforcement.&lt;p&gt;Ordinarily, even if you cannot sue the government, you can sue the individual officer in his personal capacity. Under the Westfall Act, however, the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for torts of federal agents acting within the scope of their employment.&lt;p&gt;That leaves a loophole: you can sue federal law enforcement officers under the FTCA for both intentional and negligent torts. But if the federal agent is not a law enforcement officer, you can only sue her for negligent torts. The issue in this case is whether TSA agents are law enforcement officers such that you can sue the federal government for their intentional torts.&lt;p&gt;The majority holding is probably correct as a matter of statutory interpretation. Still, it puts TSA in a weird loophole, where they act like law enforcement officers (including all of the power-tripping that can result in commission of intentional torts), but can&amp;#x27;t be held liable under the FTCA like law enforcement officers. The dissent makes a good point:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro dissented from Wednesday’s decision.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “By analogizing TSA searches to routine administrative inspections, my colleagues preclude victims of TSA abuses from obtaining any meaningful remedy for a variety of intentional tort claims,” he wrote.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tsa-lawsuit/tsa-screeners-win-immunity-from-flier-abuse-claims-u-s-appeals-court-idUSKBN1K125W</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>everdev</author><text>&amp;gt; She and her husband had sued for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution over a July 2006 altercation at Philadelphia International Airport.&lt;p&gt;Why does it take 12 years to get this far in a case? It seems like a right to a speedy trial should apply to civil cases too.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>TSA screeners win immunity from flier abuse claims: U.S. appeals court</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tsa-lawsuit/tsa-screeners-win-immunity-from-flier-abuse-claims-u-s-appeals-court-idUSKBN1K125W</url></story>