"The US government has sovereign immunity [...] unless those acts violate the law..."
That's what the trial is about.
"...how would the FBI establish that the files were non-infringing...?"
Exactly like Megaupolad.
That's what the trial is about.
"...how would the FBI establish that the files were non-infringing...?"
Exactly like Megaupolad.
As a result, even if all of the plaintiff's claims were factually true as alleged--the posture assumed in pre-trial motions--I believe the agents acting in their official capacities would likely be found to have immunity.
There is the possibility of a Section 1983 claim against the officials if 4th amendment rights were found to be violated (which the Court has allowed), "[b]ut government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are 'shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Wilson v. Layne 526 U.S. 603, 609, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1696 (U.S.Md.,1999)." [1]
Pirates demanding the return of intellectual property.
This is something else, where after the fact no one has a copy, information is less free than before and someone has been deprived.
It would be odd if those laws were found inapplicable because they were only concerned with real property.
You appear to be confusing the general concept of sovereign immunity with the much narrower concept of qualified immunity, which generally protects government employees from being sued personally for actions performed in their official capacities.
Qualified immunity doesn't apply to the government, to its agencies, nor to, for example, the Attorney General in his official capacity. It applies to real, live, human beings.