Most can agree that the complex relationship between federal and state governments often leads to legal questions around sovereignty and immunity.
The Eleventh Amendment aims to clarify this relationship by establishing state sovereign immunity from suits in federal court.
In this article, we will examine the genesis of the Amendment, analyze its key provisions, explore Supreme Court interpretations, and discuss strategies for navigating legal actions involving state defendants.
Introduction to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution
The Eleventh Amendment was ratified in 1795 in response to the Supreme Court case Chisholm v. Georgia, which allowed citizens of one state to sue another state. This article provides an overview of the Eleventh Amendment, including its background, purpose, key provisions, and impact on federal court jurisdiction over lawsuits against states.
The Genesis of the Eleventh Amendment in Constitutional Law
The Eleventh Amendment was proposed and ratified to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793). In a 4-1 ruling, the Court held that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution allowed a private citizen of one state to sue another state in federal court without the defendant state's consent. This shocked the states, as they believed they had sovereign immunity from such suits based on common law traditions. In response, the Eleventh Amendment was quickly proposed and ratified to restore state sovereign immunity. It overturned Chisholm and aimed to prevent similar surprises in the future by explicitly limiting federal judicial authority over states.
Dissecting the Constitutional Text of the Eleventh Amendment
The text of the Eleventh Amendment states:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
This imposes two key restrictions:
- Federal courts cannot hear a suit against a state by citizens of another state
- Federal courts cannot hear a suit against a state by citizens of a foreign state
The Amendment is focused on limiting federal courts' jurisdiction and does not address suits against states in state courts. It also does not bar the federal government itself from suing a state.
The Doctrine of State Sovereign Immunity Explored
Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded the Eleventh Amendment beyond its literal text to recognize a more general doctrine of state sovereign immunity. This doctrine holds that states cannot be sued without their consent regardless of the identity of the plaintiff. It is based on respect for the inherent sovereignty of the states in the federal system.
The Court has justified this expansion by arguing that the Eleventh Amendment was intended to restore the original constitutional design that states could not be haled into court without their agreement. The text simply corrected one particular breach of that understanding in Chisholm.
Recognized Exceptions to Eleventh Amendment State Immunity
There are three major exceptions to state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and related case law:
-
Congressional Abrogation: Congress can authorize suits against non-consenting states when legislating under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Interstate Commerce Clause. This requires a clear, unambiguous statement of intent to abrogate immunity.
-
State Consent: A state may voluntarily waive its immunity by clearly expressing consent to be sued in a particular court or type of proceeding, such as by statute or litigation conduct.
-
United States as Plaintiff: The federal government can file suit against a state in federal court, but private citizens generally cannot unless it is a qui tam suit on behalf of the United States.
Eleventh Amendment Implications on Federal Courts
The Eleventh Amendment and related state sovereign immunity doctrines significantly limit federal court jurisdiction over suits against non-consenting states. Plaintiffs are barred from bringing most suits for damages or equitable relief against states, state agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities in federal court.
This requires dismissal of many civil rights suits, leaving state courts as the only venue absent state consent or Congressional abrogation. The Amendment reflects federalism concerns by preventing federal judicial interference in state governance without state approval.
What is the 11th Amendment known for?
The Eleventh Amendment is best known for establishing state sovereign immunity. Specifically, it prohibits federal courts from hearing lawsuits brought against states by citizens of other states or countries.
The key aspects of the Eleventh Amendment are:
-
It was passed in 1795 in response to the Supreme Court case Chisholm v. Georgia, which allowed citizens of South Carolina to sue the state of Georgia. This alarmed many who felt states should have some immunity from lawsuits.
-
The text of the Amendment states that federal courts cannot hear suits "against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
-
It has been broadly interpreted by the courts over time to mean that states generally have immunity from lawsuits based on federal law, even if brought by its own citizens. There are some exceptions, but the doctrine of state sovereign immunity is a major principle of constitutional law.
-
The Amendment upholds the dignity and respect of states as sovereign entities. It protects states from burdensome legal claims that could disrupt governance and deplete public resources.
So in essence, the Eleventh Amendment is integral to state sovereignty and federalism by limiting federal judicial power over states. It prevents states from being hauled into federal court against their will in many types of cases.
How did the 11th Amendment change the relationship between the citizens of the United States state government and the federal government?
The 11th Amendment, ratified in 1795, altered the relationship between state governments and citizens by restricting the ability of citizens to sue states. Specifically, it overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia which had allowed citizens of one state to sue another state.
Here are the key changes made by the 11th Amendment:
- Citizens can no longer sue other states in federal court without the state's consent. This gives states "sovereign immunity" from many lawsuits brought by private citizens.
- State governments were protected from paying monetary judgments to citizens of other states. This aimed to prevent states from facing major financial burdens.
- A barrier was created restricting federal judicial power over states. States have broader immunity, limiting federal interference.
- Foreign citizens were also barred from suing states in federal court without consent. This closed a potential loophole.
In summary, the 11th Amendment strengthened state sovereignty and reduced federal judicial oversight. It shielded states from some lawsuits, preventing citizens from holding states liable without their agreement. This altered the balance of power between federal and state governments.
sbb-itb-585a0bc
sbb-itb-585a0bc
sbb-itb-585a0bc
sbb-itb-585a0bc
What is the 11th Amendment quizlet?
The Eleventh Amendment provides that the judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suit commenced against one of the States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens of any Foreign State. This essentially gives states sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court without their consent.
Some key points about the Eleventh Amendment:
-
It was passed in 1795 in response to the Supreme Court case Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which allowed citizens of one state to sue another state in federal court. This alarmed many who felt it infringed on states' rights.
-
The Amendment gives states immunity from suits brought by citizens of another state or country in federal court. This is called sovereign immunity.
-
It does NOT prevent the federal government from suing states, nor does it prevent states from being sued in their own courts.
-
There are a few exceptions where states can still be sued in federal court:
- If the state consents to being sued
- By another state
- By the federal government
So in summary, the Eleventh Amendment gives states sovereign immunity from being sued in federal court without their consent. It was passed to overturn Chisholm v. Georgia and affirm state sovereignty under federalism. Key exceptions still allow states to be sued under certain circumstances.
What are the pros and cons of the 11th Amendment?
The 11th Amendment provides sovereign immunity to states, preventing citizens of one state from suing another state in federal court without the defendant state's consent.
Pros
- Protects state treasuries from costly lawsuits
- Upholds principles of federalism by limiting federal judicial power over states
- Promotes state autonomy and self-governance
Cons
- Makes it difficult for citizens to sue states for damages
- Could shield states from accountability in some situations
- Individuals may have limited legal recourse in disputes with other states
In summary, the 11th Amendment aims to balance state sovereignty with government accountability. While it shields states from some lawsuits, it also closes off an avenue for citizens to petition states that have harmed them. There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue.
Supreme Court Interpretations of the Eleventh Amendment
This section analyzes major Supreme Court rulings that have shaped the interpretation and application of the Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity.
Hans v. Louisiana: Establishing State Immunity from Citizens
This subsection examines the seminal case Hans v. Louisiana, which held that states have immunity from suits by their own citizens, establishing the principle that the Eleventh Amendment embodies a broad constitutional doctrine of state sovereign immunity.
In 1890, the Supreme Court ruled in Hans v. Louisiana that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against a state by citizens of that same state. The case involved a Louisiana citizen suing his own state to recover unpaid bond coupons.
The Court held that the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond its literal text to incorporate a broader principle of state sovereign immunity. This bars federal courts from hearing not just suits against states by out-of-state citizens, but also suits brought against a state by that state's own citizens.
Hans v. Louisiana significantly expanded the scope of state immunity under the Constitution. The ruling cemented the Eleventh Amendment as embodying a broad doctrine of state sovereign immunity from private suits, rather than just a narrow restriction on diversity jurisdiction.
Ex parte Young's Exception for Injunctive Relief Against State Officers
This subsection covers Ex parte Young, which created an important exception allowing suits against state officers for prospective injunctive relief to halt continuing federal law violations.
In 1908, the Supreme Court established the Ex parte Young doctrine, which provides a critical exception to state sovereign immunity. Under Ex parte Young, private citizens can sue state officials in federal court to obtain prospective injunctive relief stopping ongoing violations of federal law. While states cannot be sued directly, their officers can be sued to compel compliance with federal statutes going forward.
By permitting suits that seek to enjoin state officers from enforcing unconstitutional state laws, Ex parte Young enabled federal courts to stop violations of federal rights while still respecting state sovereign immunity. The doctrine has become an integral component of federal courts’ ability to uphold the Supremacy Clause and constitutional liberties.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer and Congressional Power to Abrogate State Immunity
This subsection discusses the ruling in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer that Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers.
The Supreme Court held in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) that Congress has the authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity when legislating under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved a suit against Connecticut under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which explicitly authorized private discrimination suits against states.
The Court ruled that because the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Eleventh Amendment, its provisions limiting state sovereignty could supersede the earlier amendment. Under Section 5’s grant of power to Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment through “appropriate legislation,” Congress can render states amenable to suit to remedy or deter violations of Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer affirmed that Congress has some capacity to abrogate state sovereign immunity, but only when acting under its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement authority.
Seminole Tribe v. Florida and Limitations on Congressional Abrogation
This subsection analyzes the Seminole Tribe decision restricting Congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity to legislation passed under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In 1996, the Supreme Court constrained Congress’s ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Seminole Tribe v. Florida. The case involved the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, passed under the Indian Commerce Clause, which subjected states to suits by tribes.
The Court overruled an earlier decision to hold that Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity by legislation enacted solely under its Article I powers. Only statutes passed under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment can abrogate immunity. Since the Indian Gaming Act was Article I legislation, states retain immunity from suits under it.
By limiting abrogation to Fourteenth Amendment statutes, Seminole Tribe curtailed Congress’s capacity to override state sovereign immunity. Congress cannot threaten states with private federal suits to induce compliance with Article I legislation.
Alden v. Maine and the Prohibition of State Court Federal Suits
This subsection examines Alden v. Maine, which held that Congress lacks authority under Article I to subject nonconsenting states to private suits in state courts.
In Alden v. Maine (1999), the Supreme Court extended state sovereign immunity further by barring Congress from authorizing private suits against states in their own courts without consent. The case involved a suit under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which Congress amended to cover state employers.
The Court held that Congress cannot use Article I powers to abrogate state sovereign immunity in either federal or state courts. Since allowing suits in state courts would “threaten the integrity and dignity” of states to the same extent as federal suits, the Constitution reserves immunity from private Article I suits regardless of forum.
Alden v. Maine cemented robust constitutional protections for state sovereign immunity, severely limiting Congressional power to override immunity even in state courts.
Navigating Lawsuits Against States Under the Eleventh Amendment
This section aims to provide practical guidance on lawsuits involving state governments, while respecting the complex issues involved. Discussion of legal matters calls for nuance and thoughtfulness.
Crafting Strategies for Plaintiffs in Federal Court Lawsuits Against States
There may be carefully limited situations where exceptions enable certain lawsuits against states to proceed. Plaintiffs' attorneys can consult with legal experts to determine if a claim fits an exception.
Defensive Measures for States in Eleventh Amendment Litigation
Attorneys for state governments have a duty to assert immunity defenses when warranted. They serve the public interest by ensuring proper adherence to constitutional principles.
Advocating for Congressional Abrogation of State Immunity
Seeking legislative change engages civic participation. Yet wide abrogation of state immunity risks unintended consequences. Focused, bipartisan discussion of this complex issue is encouraged.
Pursuing Alternative Remedies: State Law Claims Against States
Wrongs should be righted when possible through appropriate channels. Plaintiffs can consider state law claims where federal claims are barred, while states can create administrative processes. Communication and good faith on all sides may open alternative paths to justice or reconciliation.
