Regardless, the argument there isn't that you can't sue the government at all, but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions.

Going back to the original point, personhood is clearly not a requirement for being named in a suit. For more examples you can also see in rem cases, where the government sues property itself for civil forfeiture. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness did not need personhood to be named in a lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._11_1/4_Dozen_...

> but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions.

It's actually the opposite. You can only sue the government when they explicitly give you permission.

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

The whole point I'm making here is that you can sue an entity without personhood.

That's right. I just pointed out the one of the pieces of evidence you used is slightly wrong. Suing the government is a very special case.

See the "Exceptions and abrogation" section of your own citation. It is indeed a (albeit large) subset of actions to which they can apply sovereign immunity.

Yes. All I'm trying to say is it's opt-in, not opt out. I don't find this particularly interesting or important so this is the last comment I'll make here.

Except it's not opt-in for a certain subset of actions of the government. For instance they can't block a discrimination suit on sovereign immunity grounds.

Civil forfeiture where govt sues "property" to seize it so they don't have to have a trial for the person owning said property is a shady dark pattern that shouldn't be cited as an ethical approach at all. Just my opinion.

It's not being cited as an ethical approach, only that the court system clearly doesn't require something to have full personhood in order to be sued.