Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents the government or its subdivisions from being sued without its consent. Rooted in the ancient English principle that 'the King can do no wrong,' the doctrine is justified in modern law by the need to protect the public treasury and to prevent judicial interference with complex government policy-making. If the state could be sued for every minor error in the administration of social programs or the maintenance of public roads, proponents argue, the government would be paralyzed by litigation and the resulting financial burden would fall on taxpayers. However, the absolute nature of sovereign immunity has been tempered by various legislative acts, such as the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows the government to be sued for the negligence of its employees in specific circumstances. Critics of sovereign immunity argue that the doctrine is an undemocratic relic that allows the government to escape accountability for serious harms. They contend that if a private corporation can be held liable for its employees' negligence, the government should be held to the same standard. Furthermore, they argue that immunity creates a 'moral hazard,' where government agencies may be less diligent in their safety practices because they know they are shielded from the financial consequences of their failures. These critics advocate for a further narrowing of the doctrine to ensure that individuals can seek redress for government-caused injuries.