Catching up with the recent hired-not hired-yes you're hired drama of Erwin Chemerinsky's appointment as Dean of the country's newest law school at the University of California-Irvine, we thought in might interest you to read Prof. Chemerinsky's 2004 Pierce Law Review article on the "Rehnquist Revolution" in which he critiques the Rehnquist court's limitations of Congressional power in favor of state governments and, as is perhaps more apparent in 2007 than when he wrote this article, the Executive Branch:

A doctrine derived from the premise, “the King can do no wrong,” deserves no place in American law. The United States was founded on a rejection of a monarchy and of royal prerogatives. American government is based on the fundamental recognition that the government and government officials can do wrong and must be held accountable. Sovereign Immunity undermines that basic notion.

Sovereign Immunity is inconsistent with the United States Constitution. Nowhere does the document mention, or even imply, that governments have complete immunity to suit. Sovereign Immunity is a doctrine based on a common law principle borrowed from the English common law. However, Article VI of the Constitution states that the Constitution should prevail over claims of Sovereign Immunity. Yet, Sovereign Immunity, a common law doctrine, trumps even the United States Constitution and bars suits against government entities, when they violate the Constitution and federal laws.

Sovereign Immunity is inconsistent with a central maxim of American government: that no one, not even the government, is above the law. The effect of Sovereign Immunity is to place the government above the law. It ensures that some individuals who have suffered egregious harms will be unable to receive redress for their injuries.