As your first link says, this doesn't give them sweeping immunity. The intent of the policy (again, discussed in the first page but more later) is to protect the government from doing reasonable things.
Sweeping immunity obviously doesn't exist, as evidenced by the court ruling this thread is about. The government gets sued all the time and frequently they have to pay damages.
Remember, the US was explicitly set up to see itself as an adversary. You can read this in practically any of the federalist papers. The founders saw government as a necessary evil and even talked about how democracies often become autocracies by autocrats being freely elected.
It's 250 years into that so yeah, things have changed a lot since then. But it's worth noting that a fair amount of this got embedded into the constitution. So it gets upheld as long as at least one party is adversarial to the other. Interestingly, in many ways this can be maintained even if both parties are adversaries to be people. Clearly something we don't want (cough) but that was by design. 250 years is a pretty good run
Based on my citations, I believe there is an argument to be made that government and presidential immunity might prevent any civil claims from sticking, but I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong by the outcome of a legal action. If the tariffs are determined to be unlawful (after exhaustion of any appeals), one would think recourse would be possible, but only the outcome of legal proceedings would confirm.
There's an argument to be made but not one that will universally hold.
What that means for tariffs, will IANAL (pretty sure that's most of us here too). So I don't know. But I do know the gov can't be sued for damages and isn't immune from consequences. That's all I was saying
Sweeping immunity obviously doesn't exist, as evidenced by the court ruling this thread is about. The government gets sued all the time and frequently they have to pay damages.
Remember, the US was explicitly set up to see itself as an adversary. You can read this in practically any of the federalist papers. The founders saw government as a necessary evil and even talked about how democracies often become autocracies by autocrats being freely elected.
It's 250 years into that so yeah, things have changed a lot since then. But it's worth noting that a fair amount of this got embedded into the constitution. So it gets upheld as long as at least one party is adversarial to the other. Interestingly, in many ways this can be maintained even if both parties are adversaries to be people. Clearly something we don't want (cough) but that was by design. 250 years is a pretty good run