American Humanist Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humanist_Association 

 

American Humanist Association

Abbreviation	AHA
Formation	1941
Type	Non-profit
Purpose	Advocate for equality for humanists, atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers.
Location	Washington, D.C.
Membership	34,000
Key people	Sunil Panikkath (President) Roy Speckhardt (Executive Director)
Website	www.americanhumanist.org

The American Humanist Association (AHA) is a non-profit organization in the United States that advances secular humanism, a philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms the ability and responsibility of human beings to lead personal lives of ethical fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The American Humanist Association was founded in 1941 and currently provides legal assistance to defend the constitutional rights of secular and religious minorities, actively lobbies Congress on church-state separation and other issues, and maintains a grassroots network of 250 local affiliates and chapters that engage in social activism, philosophical discussion and community-building events. The AHA has several publications, including the bi-monthly magazine The Humanist, a quarterly newsletter Free Mind, a peer-reviewed semi-annual scholastic journal Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, and a daily online news site TheHumanist.com. The organisation states that it has over 34,000 members.

Background

In 1927 an organization called the "Humanist Fellowship" began at a gathering in Chicago. In 1928 the Fellowship started publishing the New Humanist magazine with H.G. Creel as first editor. The New Humanist was published from 1928 to 1936. By 1935 the Humanist Fellowship had become the "Humanist Press Association", the first national association of humanism in the United States.

The first Humanist Manifesto was issued by a conference held at the University of Chicago in 1933. Signatories included the philosopher John Dewey, but the majority were ministers (chiefly Unitarian) and theologians. They identified humanism as an ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and social and economic justice.

In July 1939 a group of Quakers, inspired by the 1933 Humanist Manifesto, incorporated under the state laws of California the Humanist Society of Friends as a religious, educational, charitable nonprofit organization authorized to issue charters anywhere in the world and to train and ordain its own ministry. Upon ordination these ministers were then accorded the same rights and privileges granted by law to priests, ministers, and rabbis of traditional theistic religions.

History

Curtis Reese was a leader in the 1941 reorganization and incorporation of the "Humanist Press Association" as the American Humanist Association. Along with its reorganization, the AHA began printing The Humanist magazine. The AHA was originally headquartered in Yellow Springs, Ohio, then San Francisco, California, and in 1978 Amherst, New York. Subsequently, the AHA moved to Washington, D.C.

In 1952 the AHA became a founding member of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

The AHA was the first national membership organization to support abortion rights. Around the same time, the AHA joined hands with the American Ethical Union (AEU) to help establish the rights of nontheistic conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War. This time also saw Humanists involved in the creation of the first nationwide memorial societies, giving people broader access to cheaper alternatives than the traditional burial. In the late 1960s the AHA also secured a religious tax exemption in support of its celebrant program, allowing Humanist celebrants to legally officiate at weddings, perform chaplaincy functions, and in other ways enjoy the same rights as traditional clergy.

In 1991 the AHA took control of the Humanist Society, a religious Humanist organization that now runs the celebrant program. Since 1991 the organization has worked as an adjunct to the American Humanist Association to certify qualified members to serve in this special capacity as ministers. The Humanist Society's ministry prepares Humanist Celebrants to lead ceremonial observances.  After this transfer, the AHA commenced the process of jettisoning its religious tax exemption and resumed its exclusively educational status. Today the AHA is recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3), publicly supported educational organization.

Membership numbers are disputed, but Djupe and Olson place it as "definitely fewer than 50,000." The AHA has over 575,000 followers on Facebook and over 42,000 followers on Twitter.

Adjuncts and affiliates

The AHA is the supervising organization for various Humanist affiliates and adjunct organizations.

Black Humanist Alliance

The Black Humanist Alliance of the American Humanist Association was founded in 2016 as a pillar of its new "Initiatives for Social Justice." Like the Feminist Humanist Alliance and the LGBT Humanist Alliance, the Black Humanist Alliance uses an intersectional approach to addressing issues facing the Black community. As its mission states, the BHA "concern ourselves with confronting expressions of religious hegemony in public policy," but is "also devoted to confronting social, economic, and political deprivations that disproportionately impact Black America due to centuries of culturally ingrained prejudices."

Feminist Humanist Alliance

The Feminist Humanist Alliance (formerly the Feminist Caucus) of the American Humanist Association was established in 1977 as a coalition of women and men within the AHA to work toward the advancement of women's rights and equality between the sexes in all aspects of society. Originally called the Women's Caucus, the new name was adopted in 1985 as more representative of all the members of the caucus and of the caucus' goals. Over the years, members of the Caucus have advocated for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and participated in various public demonstrations, including marches for women's and civil rights. In 1982, the Caucus established its annual Humanist Heroine Award, with the initial award being presented to Sonia Johnson. Others receiving the awards have included Tish Sommers, Christine Craft, and Fran Hosken. In 2012 the Caucus declared it would be organizing around two principal efforts: "Refocusing on passing the ERA" and "Promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

In 2016, the Feminist Caucus reorganized as the Feminist Humanist Alliance as a component of their larger "Initiatives for Social Justice." As stated on its website, the "refinement in vision" emphasized "FHA's more active partnership with outreach programs and social justice campaigns with distinctly inclusive feminist objectives." Its current goal is to provide a "movement powered by and for women, transpeople, and genderqueer people to fight for social justice. We are united to create inclusive and diverse spaces for activists and allies on the local and national level."

LGBTQ Humanist Alliance

The LGBTQ Humanist Alliance (formerly LGBT Humanist Council) of the American Humanist Association is committed to advancing equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families. The alliance "seeks to cultivate safe and affirming communities, promote humanist values, and achieve full equality and social liberation of LGBTQ persons."

Paralleling the Black Humanist Alliance and the Feminist Humanist Alliance, the Council reformed in 2016 as the LGBTQ Humanist Alliance as a larger part of the AHA's "Initiatives for Social Justice."

Disaster Recovery

In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Foundation Beyond Belief (FBB) merged their respective charitable programs Humanist Charities (established in 2005) and Humanist Crisis Response (established in 2011). AHA's Executive Director Roy Speckhardt commented that, “This merger is a positive move that will grow the relief efforts of the humanist community. The end result will be more money directed to charitable activities, dispelling the false claim that nonbelievers don’t give to charity.”

Now Foundation Beyond Belief's Disaster Recovery program, this effort serves as a focal point for the humanist response to major natural disasters and complex humanitarian crises all over the world. The program coordinates financial support as well as trained humanist volunteers to help impacted communities. The Disaster Recovery program is sustained through the ongoing partnership between FBB and AHA, and ensures that our community's efforts are centralized and efficient.

Between 2014–2018, Humanist Disaster Recovery has raised over $250,000 for victims of the Syrian Refugee Crisis, Refugee Children of the U.S. Border, Tropical Cyclone Sam, and the Nepal and Ecuadoran Earthquakes, Hurricane Matthew in Haiti, and Hurricanes Irma and Maria. In addition to grants for recovery efforts, volunteers have also helped to rebuild homes and schools in the following locations: Columbia, South Carolina after the effects of Hurricane Joaquin, in Denham Springs, Louisiana; and in Houston, Texas after the flooding from Hurricane Harvey.

Appignani Humanist Legal Center

Official logo of the AHLC

The Association launched the Appignani Humanist Legal Center (AHLC) in 2006 to ensure that humanists' constitutional rights are represented in court. Through amicus activity, litigation, and legal advocacy, a team of cooperating lawyers, including Jim McCollum, Wendy Kaminer, and Michael Newdow, provide legal assistance by challenging perceived violations of the Establishment Clause.

• The AHLC's first independent litigation was filed on November 29, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Attorney James Hurley, the AHLC lawyer serving as lead counsel, filed suit against the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections on behalf of Plaintiff Jerry Rabinowitz, whose polling place was a church in Delray Beach, Florida. The church featured numerous religious symbols, including signs exhorting people to “Make a Difference with God” and anti-abortion posters, which the AHLC claimed demonstrated a violation of the Establishment Clause. In the voting area itself, "Rabinowitz observed many religious symbols in plain view, both surrounding the election judges and in direct line above the voting machines. He took photographs that will be entered in evidence." U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks ruled that Jerry Rabinowitz did not have standing to challenge the placement of polling sites in churches, and dismissed the case.
• In February 2014, AHA brought suit to force the removal of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a war memorial honoring 49 residents of Prince George's County, Maryland, who died in World War I. AHA represented the plaintiffs, Mr. Lowe, who drives by the memorial "about once a month" and Fred Edwords, former AHA Executive director. AHA argued that the presence of a Christian religious symbol on public property violates the First Amendment clause prohibiting government from establishing a religion. Town officials feel the monument to have historic and patriotic significant to local residents. A member of the local American Legion Post said, "I mean, to me, it's like they're slapping the veterans in the face. I mean, that's a tribute to the veterans, and for some reason, I have no idea what they have against veterans. I mean, if it wasn't for us veterans they wouldn't have the right to do what they're trying to do."
• In March 2014, a Southern California woman reluctantly removed a roadside memorial from near a freeway ramp where her 19-year-old son was killed after the AHA contacted the city council calling the cross on city-owned property a "serious constitutional violation".
• AHLC represented an atheist family who claimed that the equal rights amendment of the Massachusetts constitution prohibits mandatory daily recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance because the anthem contains the phrase “under God.” In November 2012 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court permitted a direct appeal with oral arguments set for early 20 but . in May 2014, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the daily recitation of the phrase “under god” in the US Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the plaintiffs' equal protection rights under the Massachusetts Constitution.
• In February 2015 New Jersey Superior Court Judge David F. Bauman dismissed a lawsuit challenging the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling that "...the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the rights of those who don't believe in God and does not have to be removed from the patriotic message." In a twenty-one page decision, Bauman wrote, "Under (the association members') reasoning, the very constitution under which (the members) seek redress for perceived atheistic marginalization could itself be deem unconstitutional, an absurd proposition which (association members) do not and cannot advance here."

Advertising campaigns

2008 Bus Campaign

The American Humanist Association has received media attention for its various advertising campaigns; in 2010, the AHA's campaign was said to be the more expensive than similar ad campaigns from the American Atheists and Freedom From Religion Foundation.

In 2008 it ran ads on buses in Washington, D.C. that proclaimed "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake", and since 2009 the organization has paid for billboard advertisements nationwide. One such billboard, which stated "No God...No Problem" was repeatedly vandalized.

In 2010 it launched another ad campaign promoting Humanism, which The New York Times said was the "first (atheist campaign) to include spots on television and cable" and was described by CNN as the "largest, most extensive advertising campaign ever by a godless organization". The campaign featured violent or sexist quotes from holy books, contrasted with quotes from humanist thinkers, including physicist Albert Einstein, biologist Richard Dawkins, and was largely underwritten by Todd Stiefel, a retired pharmaceutical company executive.

In late 2011 it launched a holiday billboard campaign, placing advertisements in 7 different cities: Kearny, New Jersey; Washington, D.C.; Cranston, Rhode Island; Bastrop, Louisiana; Oregon City, Oregon; College Station, Texas and Rochester Hills, Michigan", cities where AHA stated "atheists have experienced discrimination due to their lack of belief in a traditional god". The organization spent more than $200,000 on their campaign which included a billboard reading "Yes, Virginia, there is no god."

In November 2012, the AHA launched a national ad campaign to promote a new website, KidsWithoutGod.com, with ads using the slogans "I'm getting a bit old for imaginary friends" and "You're Not The Only One." The campaign included bus advertising in Washington, DC, a billboard in Moscow, Idaho, and online ads on the family of websites run by Cheezburger and Pandora Radio, as well as Facebook, Reddit, Google, and YouTube. Ads were turned down because of their content by Disney, Time for Kids and National Geographic Kids.

National Day of Reason

The National Day of Reason was created by the American Humanist Association and the Washington Area Secular Humanists in 2003. In addition to serving as a holiday for secularists, the National Day of Reason was created in response to the unconstitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. According to the organizers of the event, the National Day of Prayer "violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because it asks federal, state, and local government entities to set aside tax dollar supported time and space to engage in religious ceremonies". Several organizations associated with the National Day of Reason have organized food drives and blood donations, while other groups have called for an end to prayer invocations at city meetings. Other organizations, such as the Oklahoma Atheists and the Minnesota Atheists, have organized local secular celebrations as alternatives to the National Day of Prayer. Additionally, many individuals affiliated with these atheistic groups choose to protest the official National Day of Prayer.

Reason Rally

In 2012, the American Humanist Association co-sponsored the Reason Rally, a national gathering of "humanists, atheists, freethinkers and nonbelievers from across the United States and abroad" in Washington, D.C. The rally, held on the National Mall, had speakers such as Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Adam Savage, and student activist Jessica Ahlqvist. . According to the Huffington Post, the event's attendance was between 8,000–10,000 while the Atlantic reported nearly 20,000. The AHA also co-sponsored the 2016 Reason Rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

Famous awardees

The American Humanist Association has named a "Humanist of the Year" annually since 1953. It has also granted other honors to numerous leading figures, including Salman Rushdie (Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism 2007), Oliver Stone (Humanist Arts Award, 1996), Katharine Hepburn (Humanist Arts Award 1985), John Dewey (Humanist Pioneer Award, 1954), Jack Kevorkian (Humanist Hero Award, 1996) and Vashti McCollum (Distinguished Service Award, 1991).

Secular Coalition for America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Coalition_for_America 

 

Secular Coalition for America

Formation	2002
Type	Non-profit organization
Purpose	Advocate for the nontheistic community in the United States and for secularism.
Location	Washington, D.C.
Website	www.secular.org

The Secular Coalition for America is an advocacy group located in Washington D.C.. It describes itself as "representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, agnostics, and other nontheistic Americans."

The Secular Coalition has chapters in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, composed of lobbyists trained by the organization. The Coalition holds an annual lobby day and policy conference, publishes yearly Congressional report cards and voter guides, and in 2013 issued its first Model Secular Policy Guide for Legislatures.

Former White House staffer Edwina Rogers served as Executive Director from May 2012 to May 2014. Sean Faircloth, a five-term Maine state legislator, served as Executive Director between 2009 and 2011. Between 2005 and 2009, it was directed by former Nevada state senator Lori Lipman Brown, who became its first full-time lobbyist in September 2005.

The Secular Coalition works to increase visibility and respect for irreligious, nontheistic viewpoints in the United States and to protect and strengthen the secular character of the U.S. government. The Coalition advocates complete separation of church and state within American politics which they claim is clearly established in the U.S. Constitution under the First Amendment. Furthermore, the Coalition holds that freedom of conscience, which includes religious freedom, was of such importance that it was made the first of all freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights, and that reason and science should be guiding tenets for public policy.

Mission

The mission of the Secular Coalition for America is to increase the visibility of and respect for nontheistic viewpoints in the United States and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all.

History

The Secular Coalition for America was founded in 2002 by four U.S. secular organizations: Atheist Alliance International, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Secular Student Alliance, and the Secular Web. In 2005 the American Humanist Association became the Coalition's fifth member organization. The Society for Humanistic Judaism and the Freedom From Religion Foundation joined the Coalition in January 2006, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers in February 2007, and the American Ethical Union in April 2008. In 2009, Camp Quest joined in January and American Atheists became a member in June. The Council for Secular Humanism joined in January 2010. 

Coalition president Herb Silverman was a leading force behind the founding of the organization, which was designed as a framework for cooperation among secular groups in the United States. Silverman believed that nontheistic Americans could gradually gain the respect of politicians and society if they collaborated on issues and presented a unified force for activism.

The Coalition's member organizations, as of 2018 are:

• American Atheists
• American Ethical Union
• American Humanist Association
• Atheist Alliance of America
• Black Nonbelievers, Inc.
• Camp Quest
• Center for Inquiry (parent organization of the Council for Secular Humanism)
• Congress of Secular Jewish Organizations
• Ex-Muslims of North America
• Foundation Beyond Belief
• Freethought Society
• Freedom From Religion Foundation
• Hispanic American Freethinkers
• Institute for Humanist Studies
• Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
• Recovering From Religion
• Secular Student Alliance
• Society for Humanistic Judaism
• Unitarian Universalist Humanists

Board of directors

The Secular Coalition for America Board of Directors is democratically structured. Each sponsoring member organization appoints one individual to serve as its representative director, who casts one vote on any matter considered by the Board. Officers may be associated with member organizations or may come from the wider freethought community. Current officers are Herb Silverman, founder; Bob Kresek, president; Bill Norsworthy, vice president; Ron Lindsay, vice president; Alexander Satorie-Robinson, treasurer; Bonnie Cousens, secretary; John Levin; Madison Paige; Michael Trollan; Doug White.

Advisory board

Advisors to the Secular Coalition for America are Woody Kaplan (Chair), Rob Boston, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Rebecca Goldstein, Sam Harris, Jeff Hawkins, Wendy Kaminer, Michael Newdow, Dan Okrent, Steven Pinker, Salman Rushdie, Pete Stark, Todd Stiefel, and Julia Sweeney.

Legislative focus

The Secular Coalition for America addresses issues arising out of what they see as the inappropriate presence of religion into public policy, such as government funding of religious ministries (the "faith-based initiative" or "charitable choice"); tuition vouchers for religious schools; federally funded abstinence-only sex education; limits to embryonic stem cell research; constitutional marriage protection amendments; access to birth control and emergency contraception; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; and the Pledge Protection Act as well as other court-stripping measures.

The Coalition is particularly active in challenging what it perceives as discrimination against nontheists by government chartered organizations like the Boy Scouts of America.

Similarly, it works to keep military chaplains from actively sharing their beliefs with service members. The Coalition also welcomes and works in cooperation with religious groups regardless of affiliation when the religious group(s) share their beliefs of freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. The Secular Coalition for America espouses religious tolerance to people of all religions and those without.

Elected official contest

In 2007 the Secular Coalition for America pledged a $1,000 reward to the person identifying the highest level elected official to openly acknowledge no supernatural beliefs. The "Find an Atheist, Humanist, Freethinker Elected Official Contest" concluded with the announcement that Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of the United States Congress since 1973, held the highest office of four public servants to acknowledge a secular world view to the Coalition after being nominated by a contestant. Stark was the first Congressional member to publicly self-identify with the freethought community.

Administration briefing

On February 26, 2010, the Secular Coalition for America, along with a unified delegation of members of the secular movement from across the country, met with representatives of the Obama administration for an official policy briefing—the first of its kind specifically for American non-theists. The group raised three particular areas of concern to secular Americans: military proselytizing and religious coercion, fixing the Faith-Based Initiatives program, and ending the exemptions granted to religious groups in laws governing child medical abuse and neglect.

Congressional scorecard

The Secular Coalition for America publishes an online Congressional scorecard rating U.S. Representatives and Senators on their roll call votes and legislative sponsorship.

Sovereign immunity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune to civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.

In its older sense, sovereign immunity is the original forebear of state immunity based on the classical concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign could not be subjected without his or her approval to the jurisdiction of another.

There are two forms of sovereign immunity:

• immunity from suit (also known as immunity from jurisdiction or adjudication)
• immunity from enforcement.

Immunity from suit means that neither a sovereign/head of state in person nor any in absentia or representative form (nor to a lesser extent the state) can be a defendant or subject of court proceedings, nor in most equivalent forums such as under arbitration awards and tribunal awards/damages. Immunity from enforcement means that even if a person succeeds in any way against their sovereign or state, they and the judgment may find itself without means of enforcement. Separation of powers or natural justice coupled with a political status other than a totalitarian state dictates there be broad exceptions to immunity such as statutes which expressly bind the state (a prime example being constitutional laws) and judicial review.

Furthermore, sovereign immunity of a state entity may be waived. A state entity may waive its immunity by:

• prior written agreement
• instituting proceedings without claiming immunity
• submitting to jurisdiction as a defendant in a suit
• intervening in or taking any steps in any suit (other than for the purpose of claiming immunity).

In constitutional monarchies the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by them as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects. This rule was commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong".

By country

Australia

There is no automatic Crown immunity in Australia and the Australian Constitution does not establish a state of unfettered immunity of the Crown in respect of the States and the Commonwealth. The Constitution of Australia establishes items which the States and the Commonwealth legislate on independently of each other, in practice resulting in the States legislating on some things and the Commonwealth legislating on others. In some circumstances this can create ambiguity as to the applicability of legislation where there is no clearly established Crown immunity. The Australian Constitution does however, in s. 109, declare that, "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid." Based on this, depending on the context of application and whether a particular statute infringes on the executive powers of the State or the Commonwealth the Crown may or may not be immune from any particular statute.

Many Acts passed in Australia, both at the State or the Federal level, contain a section declaring whether the Act binds the Crown, and, if so, in what respect:

• Commonwealth Acts may contain wording similar to: "This Act binds the Crown in each of its capacities", or specify a more restricted application.
• State Acts may contain wording similar to: "This Act binds the Crown in right of [the State] and, in so far as the legislative power of the Parliament of [the State] permits, the Crown in all its other capacities."

Whilst there is no ambiguity surrounding the first aspect of this declaration with respect to binding the Crown with respect to the State in question, there have been several cases in respect of the interpretation of the second aspect extending it to the Crown in its other capacities. Rulings by the High Court of Australia on specific matters of conflict between the application of States laws on Commonwealth agencies have provided the interpretation that the Crown in all of its other capacities includes the Commonwealth, therefore if a State Act contains this text then the act may bind the Commonwealth subject to the s. 109 test of inconsistency.

A landmark case which set a precedent for challenging broad Crown immunity and established tests for the applicability of State laws on the Commonwealth was Henderson v Defence Housing Authority in 1997. This case involved the arbitration of a dispute between Mr. Henderson and the Defence Housing Authority (DHA). Mr. Henderson owned a house which the DHA had leased to provide housing to members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Under the NSW Residential Tenancies Act 1997, Mr. Henderson sought orders from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to enter the premises for the purposes of conducting inspections. In response, DHA claimed that as a Commonwealth agency the legislation of NSW did not apply to it and further sought writs of prohibition attempting to restrain Mr. Henderson from pursuing the matter further. Up until this point the Commonwealth and its agencies claimed an unfettered immunity from State legislation and had used s. 109 to justify this position, specifically that the NSW Act was in conflict with the Act which created the DHA and s. 109 of the Constitution applied. Mr. Henderson took the case to the High Court and a panel of 7 justices to arbitrate the matter. By a majority decision of 6:1 the court ruled that the DHA was bound by the NSW Act on the basis that the NSW Act did not limit, deny or restrict the activities of the DHA but sought to regulate them, an important distinction which was further explained in the rulings of several of the justices. It was ruled that the NSW Act was one of general application and therefore the Crown (in respect of the Commonwealth) could not be immune from it, citing other cases in which the same ruling had been made and that it was contrary to the rule of law. As a result of this case, the Commonwealth cannot claim a broad constitutional immunity from State legislation.

In practice, three tests have been developed to determine whether a State law applies to the Commonwealth (and vice versa):

1. does the law seek to merely regulate the activities of the Commonwealth as opposed to deny, restrict or limit them,
2. is the State law constructed such that the Act binds the Crown in respect of all of its capacities, and
3. is there no inconsistency between a State law and a Commonwealth law on the same matter.

If these three tests are satisfied then the Act binds the Crown in respect of the Commonwealth. It is important to note that in Australia there is no clear automatic Crown immunity or lack of it, as such there is a rebuttable presumption that the Crown is not bound by a statute, as noted in Bropho v State of Western Australia. The Crown's immunity may also apply to other parties in certain circumstances, as held in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare.

Belgium

Article 88 of the Constitution of Belgium states: "The King’s person is inviolable; his ministers are accountable."

Bhutan

According to the constitution of Bhutan, the monarch is not answerable in a court of law for his or her actions.

Canada

Canada inherited common law version of Crown immunity from British law. However, over time the scope of Crown immunity has been steadily reduced by statute law. As of 1994, section 14 of the Alberta Interpretation Act stated, "No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner, unless the enactment expressly states that it binds Her Majesty." However, in more recent times "All Canadian provinces ... and the federal government (the Crown Liability Act) have now rectified this anomaly by passing legislation which leaves the 'Crown' liable in tort as a normal person would be. Thus, the tort liability of the government is a relatively new development in Canada, statute-based, and is not a fruit of common law."

Since 1918, it has been held that provincial legislatures cannot bind the federal Crown, as Fitzpatrick CJ noted in Gauthier v The King:

Provincial legislation cannot proprio vigore [i.e., of its own force] take away or abridge any privilege of the Crown in right of the Dominion.

It has also been a constitutional convention that the Crown in right of each province is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts in other provinces. However this is now in question.

Lieutenant Governors do not enjoy the same immunity as the Sovereign in matters not relating to the powers of the office. In 2013, the Supreme Court refused to hear the request of former Lieutenant Governor of Quebec Lise Thibault to have charges against her dropped. She was being prosecuted by the Attorney General of Quebec for misappropriation of public funds but invoked royal immunity on the basis that "the Queen can do no wrong". As per convention, the court did not disclose its reasons for not considering the matter. Thibault later petitioned the Court of Quebec for the same motives. Judge St-Cyr again rejected her demand, noting that constitutional law does not grant a lieutenant-governor the same benefits as the Queen and that in her case, royal immunity would only apply to actions involving official state functions, not personal ones. She was eventually declared guilty and sentenced to 18 months in jail but was granted conditional release after serving six months.

China

China has consistently claimed that a basic principle of international law is for states and their property to have absolute sovereign immunity. China objects to restrictive sovereign immunity. It is held that a state can waive its immunity by voluntarily stating so, but that should a government intervene in a suit (e.g. to make protests), it should not be viewed as waiver of immunity. Chinese state-owned companies considered instrumental to the state have claimed sovereign immunity in lawsuits brought against them in foreign courts before. China's view is that sovereign immunity is a lawful right and interest that their enterprises are entitled to protect. Some examples of Chinese state-owned companies that have claimed sovereign immunity in foreign lawsuits are the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) and China National Building Material.

Denmark

Article 13 of the Constitution of Denmark states: "The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute." Accordingly, the monarch cannot be sued in his or her personal capacity. On the other hand, this immunity from lawsuits does not extend to the state as such and article 63 explicitly authorises the courts to judge the executive authority: "The courts of justice shall be empowered to decide any question relating to the scope of the executive's authority; though any person wishing to question such authority shall not, by taking the case to the courts of justice, avoid temporary compliance with orders given by the executive authority."

Holy See

The Holy See, of which the current pope is head (often referred to by metonymy as the Vatican or Vatican City State, a distinct entity), claims sovereign immunity for the pope, supported by many international agreements.

Hong Kong

In 2011, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled that absolute sovereign immunity applies in Hong Kong, as the Court found that Hong Kong, as a Special Administrative Region of China, could not have policies on state immunity that was inconsistent with China. The ruling was an outcome of the Democratic Republic of the Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates case in 2011.

Democratic Republic of the Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates (2011)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo and its state-owned electricity company Société nationale d'électricité (SNEL) defaulted on payments of a debt owed to an energy company, Energoinvest. During arbitration, Energoinvest was awarded damages against the Congolese government and SNEL. This was reassigned by Energoinvest to FG Hemisphere Associates LLC.

FG Hemisphere subsequently learned that the Congolese government entered into a separate joint venture with Chinese companies later, in which the Congolese government would be paid US$221 million in mining entry fees. As a result, FG Hemisphere applied to collect these fees in order to enforce the earlier arbitral award. The Congolese government asserted sovereign immunity in the legal proceedings. This was eventually brought to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, when the Congolese government fought to overturn an earlier Court of Appeal decision which had ruled that:

• as restrictive sovereign immunity applied in Hong Kong, the Congolese government had no immunity in commercial proceedings.
• if absolute sovereign immunity had applied in Hong Kong, the Congolese government had waived their sovereign immunity rights in this case.

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ruled 3:2 that the Congolese government had not waived its immunity in the Hong Kong courts, and that as a Special Administrative Region of China, Hong Kong could not have policies on state immunity that was inconsistent with China's. Therefore, the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied in Hong Kong should be absolute, and may be invoked when jurisdiction is sought in the foreign court in relation to an application to enforce a foreign judgment or arbitral award, or when execution is sought against assets in the foreign state. This means that sovereign states are absolutely immune to the jurisdiction in Hong Kong courts, including in commercial claims, unless the state waives its immunity. In order to waive immunity, there must be express, unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts "in the face of the court". Claimants should establish that the state party has waived their entitlement to immunity at the relevant stage, before proceedings can occur in court.

Iceland

According to article 11 of the Constitution of Iceland the president can only be held accountable and be prosecuted with the consent of parliament.

India

According to Article 361 Constitution of India no legal action in the court of law can be taken against President of India and Governors of states of India as long as that person is holding either office. However, he/she can be impeached and then sued for his/her actions.

Ireland

In Byrne v Ireland, the Irish Supreme Court declared that sovereign immunity had not survived the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, and that accordingly the state could be sued for and held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its servants and agents.

Italy

According to the Constitution, the President of the Italian Republic is not accountable, and he is not responsible for any act of his office, unless he has committed high treason or attempted to subvert the Constitution, as stated in Article 90:

The President of the Republic is not responsible for the actions performed in the exercise of presidential duties, except in the case of high treason or violation of the Constitution. In such cases, the President may be impeached by Parliament in joint session, with an absolute majority of its members.

The Italian Penal Code makes it a criminal offence to insult the honor and prestige of the President (Art. 278), and until 2006 it was an offence to publicly give the President responsibility for actions of the Government (Art. 279 – abrogated).

The Italian Constitutional Court has declared the partial incompatibility with the Italian Constitution of a law that forced courts to delay all trials against the Italian Prime Minister while he is in office. The revised version says that the trial hearings have to be scheduled in agreement between the Judge and the Government.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, an amendment to the constitution in 1993 made it possible to bring proceedings against the king or any ruler of a component state in the Special Court. Prior to 1993, rulers, in their personal capacity, were immune from any proceedings brought against them.

Nigeria

Section 308 of the Nigerian constitution of 1999 provides immunity from court proceedings, i.e., proceedings that will compel their attendance in favour of elected executive officers, namely the President and his vice and the Governors of the states and the deputies. This immunity extends to acts done in their official capacities so that they are not responsible for acts done on behalf of the state. However, this immunity does not extend to acts done in abuse of the powers of their office of which they are liable upon the expiration of their tenure. It is important to note that the judiciary has absolute immunity for actions decisions taken in their official capacity.

Norway

Article 5 of the Constitution of Norway states: "The King's person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. The responsibility rests with his Council." Accordingly, the monarch cannot be prosecuted or sued in his or her personal capacity, but this immunity does not extend to the state as such. Neither does immunity extend to the monarch in his capacity as an owner or stakeholder in real property, or as an employer, provided that the suit does not allege personal responsibility for the monarch.

Philippines

Article XVI, Section 3 of the Philippines Constitution states: "The State may not be sued without its consent."

Spain

The Spanish monarch is personally immune from prosecution for acts committed by government ministers in the King's name, according to Title II, Section 56, Subsection 3 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978.

The person of the King is inviolable and shall not be held accountable. His acts shall always be countersigned in the manner established in section 64. Without such countersignature they shall not be valid, except as provided under section 65(2).

At the time of the June 2014 abdication of King Juan Carlos the Spanish constitution did not state whether an abdicated monarch retains his legal immunity, but the government was planning to make changes to allow this. Legislation has been passed, although unlike his previous immunity, the new legislation does not completely shield the former sovereign. Juan Carlos must answer to the supreme court, in a similar type of protection afforded to many high-ranking civil servants and politicians in Spain. The legislation stipulates that all outstanding legal matters relating to the former king be suspended and passed "immediately" to the supreme court.

Sri Lanka

By the Constitution of Sri Lanka, the President of Sri Lanka has sovereign immunity (till the period of office).

Sweden

Chapter 5, Article 8 of the Swedish Constitution states: "The King or Queen who is Head of State cannot be prosecuted for his or her actions. Nor can a Regent be prosecuted for his or her actions as Head of State." This only concerns the King as a private person, since he does not appoint the government, nor do any public officials act in his name. It does not concern other members of the Royal Family, except in such cases as they are exercising the office of Regent when the King is unable to serve. It is a disputed matter among Swedish constitutional lawyers whether the article also implies that the King is immune against lawsuits in civil cases, which do not involve prosecution.

Singapore

In Singapore, state immunities are codified in the State Immunity Act of 1979, which closely resembles the United Kingdom's State Immunity Act 1978. Singapore's State Immunity Act has phrases identical to that of Section 9 of United Kingdom's State Immunity Act, and does not allow a foreign state, which has agreed to submit a dispute to arbitration, to claim jurisdictional immunity in judicial proceedings relating to the agreed arbitration, i.e. "where a State has agreed in writing to submit a dispute which has arisen, or may arise, to arbitration, the state is not immune as respects proceedings in the courts in Singapore which relate to the arbitration". 

The President of Singapore does to a certain extent have sovereign immunity subjected to clause 22k(4). (See Part V under government regarding the President of Singapore)

United Kingdom

Immunity in proceedings

Historically, the general rule in the United Kingdom has been that the Crown has never been able to be prosecuted or proceeded against in either criminal or civil cases. The only means by which civil proceedings could be brought were:

• by way of petition of right, which was dependent on the grant of the royal fiat (i.e. permission);
• by suits against the Attorney General for a declaration; or
• by actions against ministers or government departments where an Act of Parliament had specifically provided that immunity be waived.

The position was drastically altered by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which made the Crown (when acting as the government) liable as of right in proceedings where it was previously only liable by virtue of a grant of a fiat. With limited exceptions, this had the effect of allowing proceedings for tort and contract to be brought against the Crown. Proceedings to bring writs of mandamus and prohibition were always available against ministers, because their actions derive from the royal prerogative.

Criminal proceedings are still prohibited from being brought against Her Majesty's Government unless expressly permitted by the Crown Proceedings Act.

As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in respect of acts carried on by or on behalf of the British government, the monarch remains personally immune from criminal and civil actions. However, civil proceedings can, in theory, still be brought using the two original mechanisms outlined above – by petition of right or by suit against the Attorney General for a declaration.

Other immunities

The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases; members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings. No arrest can be made "in the monarch's presence", or within the "verges" of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.

The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another's land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.

United States

In United States law, state, federal and tribal governments generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits. Local governments typically enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. 

In the US, sovereign immunity falls into two categories:

• Absolute immunity: pursuant to which a government actor may not be sued for the allegedly wrongful act, even if that person acted maliciously or in bad faith; and
• Qualified immunity: pursuant to which a government actor is shielded from liability only if specific conditions are met, as specified in statute or case law.

In some situations, sovereign immunity may have been waived by law.

Federal sovereign immunity

The federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued anywhere in the United States unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued. The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it." Price v. United States, 174 U.S. 373, 375-76 (1899).

State sovereign immunity

In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991), the court explained that

we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention". [Citations omitted.]

In Alden v. Maine (1999), the Court explained that while it has

sometimes referred to the States' immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity"[,] [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.

Writing for the Court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers".

However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of preratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law". Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006, emphasis added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'". Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979). Nor are school districts, per Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977).

Additionally, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity when it acts pursuant to powers delegated to it by any amendments ratified after the Eleventh Amendment. The abrogation doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976), is most often implicated in cases that involve Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states.