Chisholm v. Georgia

Last updated

Chisholm v. Georgia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 5, 1793
Decided February 18, 1793
Full case nameAlexander Chisholm, Executors v. Georgia
Citations2 U.S. 419 ( more )
2 Dall. 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 1793 U.S. LEXIS 249
Case history
PriorOriginal action filed, U.S. Supreme Court, August, 1792 [note 1]
Holding
Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Jay
Associate Justices
James Wilson  · William Cushing
John Blair Jr.  · James Iredell
Case opinions
SeriatimCushing
SeriatimBlair
SeriatimWilson
SeriatimJay
DissentIredell
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. III; Judiciary Act of 1789
Superseded by
U.S. Const. amend. XI

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. [2] Since the case was argued prior to the formal pronouncement of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent (particularly in U.S. law). [3] The Court in a 4–1 decision ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, executor of an estate of a citizen of South Carolina, holding that Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.

Contents

The case was superseded in 1795 by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution which was considered binding by the Court in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798). The Supreme Court formally established sovereign immunity in federal courts in Hans v. Louisiana (1890) and state courts in Alden v. Maine (1999) using the Eleventh Amendment, effectively overturning their decision.

Background of the case

On October 31, 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized Thomas Stone and Edward Davies, as commissioners of the state, to purchase goods from Robert Farquhar, a South Carolina merchant, to help stationed Continental Army troops in Savannah who were in dire need of supplies. Stone and Davies agreed to give Farquhar $169,613.33 (in indigo or continental currency) for his merchandise. However, at the time of Farquhar's death in 1784, he had not received payment for his merchandise. The estate filed a claim for the debt with the Georgia legislature in 1789, but was met with a committee report refusing payment. Instead, the committee suggested the estate sue Stone and Davies, as they had withdrawn the funds meant for Farquhar from the state treasury.

Prior history

Alexander Chisholm, a merchant in Charleston and an executor to Farquhar's estate, brought suit against the state of Georgia in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia. The circuit court heard the case in October 1791 under the caption of Farquhar's Executor v. Georgia. [1] : 20–22  Chisholm sought £100,000 sterling in payment and damages. Georgia governor Edward Telfair argued that Georgia was "a free, sovereign and independent State...[and] cannot be drawn or compelled... to answer, against the will of the said State of Georgia, before any Justices of the federal Circuit Court for the District of Georgia or before any Justices of any Court of Law or Equity whatsoever", [1] : 22  a stance of sovereign immunity. Associate Justice James Iredell, who heard the case while riding circuit, along with U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel Pendleton, dismissed the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789, on grounds that a state could not be sued by a citizen of another state in federal circuit court. [1] : 23 

Supreme Court

Chisholm subsequently filed a new suit before the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, likely in the February 1792 term. The case, captioned as Chisholm, Executor v. Georgia, sought damages amounting to $500,000. [1] : 23  When no representative for Georgia appeared before the Court in the August 1792 term, plaintiff's counsels John Hallowell and Attorney General Edmund Randolph consented to hold over the case until the February 1793 term. Despite additional provision of notice by the Court, no attorneys or representatives for the state appeared in the February 1793 term. The Court then proceeded to hear Randolph's arguments. [1] : 23–24 

The court's decision

In a four-to-one decision, the Court held for the plaintiff, with Chief Justice John Jay and associate justices William Cushing, James Wilson, and John Blair constituting the majority; only Justice Iredell dissented. (At that time, there was no opinion of the court or majority opinion; the justices delivered their opinions seriatim or individually, in ascending order of seniority.) [4] The Court ruled that Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution expressly extended federal judicial power to suits between a state and a citizen of another state, and placed that power within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Moreover, it held, the Constitution provided no exception which limited that authority only to suits where the state was the plaintiff.

Chief Justice John Jay's Opinion

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Jay begins by breaking down the argument made by the plaintiffs into four different questions: [5]

  1. Can the State of Georgia, being one of the United States of America, be made a party-defendant in any case, in the Supreme Court of the United States, at the suit of a private citizen, even although he himself is, and his testator was, a citizen of the State of South Carolina?
  2. If the State of Georgia can be made a party defendant in certain cases, does an action of assumpsit lie against her?
  3. Is the service of the summons upon the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Georgia, a competent service?
  4. By what process ought the appearance of the State of Georgia to be enforced?

In the opening words of his opinion, Justice Wilson stated the essential principle on which the case turned: "This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State; certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this 'do the people of the United States form a Nation?'" [3]

Justice Iredell’s Dissent

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Iredell stated, “A general question of great importance here occurs. What controversy of a civil nature can be maintained against a State by an individual? The framers of the Constitution, I presume, must have meant one of two things: either 1. in the conveyance of that part of the judicial power which did not relate to the execution of the other authorities of the general Government (which it must be admitted are full and discretionary, within the restrictions of the Constitution itself), to refer to antecedent laws for the construction of the general words they use; or, 2. to enable Congress in all such cases to pass all such laws as they might deem necessary and proper to carry the purposes of this Constitution into full effect, either absolutely at their discretion, or at least in cases where prior laws were deficient for such purposes, if any such deficiency existed.” Iredell stated that neither of these things was argued in the case, and reasoned that under common law each State was sovereign, just as under English law, and they could not be sued without their consent.

Subsequent developments

Although Justice Iredell's was the only dissenting opinion, his opinion ultimately became the law of the land. The States, surprised by the decision of the Supreme Court, called for the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, which precludes a State from being sued in Federal Court without that State's consent. By February 1795, 12 of the then 15 states had ratified the 11th Amendment; South Carolina ratified it in 1797, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania took no action on ratification. In 1795, the Eleventh Amendment was ratified to negate the holding in Chisholm v. Georgia. Under the 11th Amendment, citizens of one state or of foreign countries can only sue a state with the state's consent or if Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of Fourteenth Amendment remedial powers, abrogates the states' immunity from suit.

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mathis, Doyle (June 1967). "Chisholm v. Georgia: Background and Settlement". The Journal of American History. 54 (1). doi:10.2307/1900316.
  2. ↑ Barnett, Randy E. The People or the State?: Chisholm v. Georgia and Popular Sovereignty. Virginia Law Review (2007): 1729-1758. p.1729.
  3. 1 2 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall. ) 419 (1793).
  4. ↑ Rotunda, Ronald D. (October 9, 2017). "The Fall of Seriatim Opinions and the Rise of the Supreme Court". Verdict. Justia.com. Retrieved August 6, 2022. [B]efore Chief Justice John Marshall came to the bench in 1801, each justice would typically write his own separate opinion. ... Before Marshall, Chief Justice Ellsworth tried to persuade his colleagues to adopt an Opinion of the Court. There were a few such opinions, but when he left the Court, the justices returned to their own ways.
  5. ↑ "Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 15, 2022.
  1. ↑ Chisholm first sued Georgia in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia but that was under the name Farquhar's Executor v. Georgia. However it was widely reported that the case was an original suit filed in the United States Supreme Court. This may be due to the Circuit Court case being overlooked due to the use of the name Farquhar rather than Chisholm. [1] : 22 

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1795 amendment restricting ability to sue states in federal courts

The Eleventh Amendment is an amendment to the United States Constitution which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states of which they are not citizens in federal court.

Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled early in America's history that the President of the United States has no formal role in the process of amending the United States Constitution and that the Eleventh Amendment was binding on cases already pending prior to its ratification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary Act of 1789</span> United States law establishing the federal court system

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts for injunctions against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's sovereign immunity, when the State acted contrary to any federal law or contrary to the Constitution.

Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court determining that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court. Citizens cannot bring suits against their own state for cases related to the federal constitution and federal laws. The court left open the question of whether a citizen may sue his or her state in state courts. That ambiguity was resolved in Alden v. Maine (1999), in which the Court held that a state's sovereign immunity forecloses suits against a state government in state court.

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the sovereign immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment prevented a federal court from ordering a state from paying back funds that had been unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they had been due.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. The case also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the policy of United States federal courts would be to honor the Act of State Doctrine, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the United States.

Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, 547 U.S. 189 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether state counties enjoyed sovereign immunity from private lawsuits authorized by federal law. The case involved an admiralty claim by an insurer against Chatham County, Georgia for its negligent operation of a drawbridge. The Court ruled unanimously that the county had no basis for claiming immunity because it was not acting as an "arm of the state."

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of [congressional] power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 2</span>

This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jay Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1789 to 1795

The Jay Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1789 to 1795, when John Jay served as the first Chief Justice of the United States. Jay served as Chief Justice until his resignation, at which point John Rutledge took office as a recess appointment. The Supreme Court was established in Article III of the United States Constitution, but the workings of the federal court system were largely laid out by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established a six-member Supreme Court, composed of one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. As the first President, George Washington was responsible for appointing the entire Supreme Court. The act also created thirteen judicial districts, along with district courts and circuit courts for each district.

<i>Schillinger v. United States</i> 1894 United States Supreme Court case

Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional torts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Iredell</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1790 to 1799

James Iredell was one of the first Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was appointed by President George Washington and served from 1790 until his death in 1799. His son, James Iredell Jr., was a Governor of North Carolina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 9 US 61 (1809) is an early US corporate law case decided by the US Supreme Court. It held that corporations have the capacity to sue in federal court on grounds of diversity under article three, section two of the United States Constitution. It was the first Supreme Court case to examine corporate rights and, while it is rarely featured prominently in US legal history, it set an important precedent for the legal rights of corporations, particularly with regard to corporate personhood.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</span> United States copyright law

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred a California resident from bringing suit against an Austrian railroad in federal district court. The case arose after a California resident suffered traumatic personal injuries while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. She then filed a lawsuit against the railroad in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which she alleged the railroad was responsible for causing her injuries. Because the railroad was owned by the Austrian government, the railroad claimed that the lawsuit should be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides immunity to foreign sovereigns in tort suits filed in the United States. In response, the plaintiff argued that her suit should be permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception because she purchased her rail ticket in the United States.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.