context: We agree with Boudreaux's assessment that courts have routinely applied the qualified immunity defense to actions seek ing damages against public officials performing discretionary functions.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: "In a civil penalty action, the Government is not only a different kind of plaintiff, it seeks a different kind of relief," namely "penalties, which go beyond compensation, are intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers"
citation_a.sentence: See Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 1223, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) (“In a civil penalty action, the Government is not only a different kind of plaintiff, it seeks a different kind of relief,” namely “penalties, which go beyond compensation, are intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers”); see also Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 422, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987) (penalties are “intended to punish culpable individuals,” not “to extract compensation or restore the status quo”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: penalties are "intended to punish culpable individuals," not "to extract compensation or restore the status quo"
citation_b.sentence: See Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 1223, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) (“In a civil penalty action, the Government is not only a different kind of plaintiff, it seeks a different kind of relief,” namely “penalties, which go beyond compensation, are intended to punish, and label defendants wrongdoers”); see also Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 422, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987) (penalties are “intended to punish culpable individuals,” not “to extract compensation or restore the status quo”).