Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

Last updated

The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) 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.

Contents

The Eleventh Amendment was adopted to overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793). In that case, the Court held that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. Although the Eleventh Amendment established that federal courts do not have the authority to hear cases brought by private parties against a state of which they are not citizens, the Supreme Court has ruled the amendment to apply to all federal suits against states brought by private parties. The Supreme Court has also held that Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity when using its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Other recent cases ( Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey ) have identified further exceptions to the general sovereign immunity of States when Congress acts pursuant to its Article I powers, which have alternatively been referred to as "waivers in the plan of the Convention." The Supreme Court has also held that federal courts can enjoin state officials from violating federal law.

Text

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.

Background

The Eleventh Amendment was the first Constitutional amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights. The amendment was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia , 2 U.S. 419 (1793). [1] In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states in federal court. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gives diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state." [2]

Proposal and ratification

The Eleventh Amendment was proposed by the 3rd Congress on March 4, 1794, when it was approved by the House of Representatives by vote of 81–9, [3] having been previously passed by the Senate, 23–2, on January 14, 1794. [4] The amendment was ratified by the state legislatures of the following states: [5]

  1. New York: March 27, 1794
  2. Rhode Island: March 31, 1794
  3. Connecticut: May 8, 1794
  4. New Hampshire: June 16, 1794
  5. Massachusetts: June 26, 1794
  6. Vermont: November 9, 1794
  7. Virginia: November 18, 1794
  8. Georgia: November 29, 1794
  9. Kentucky: December 7, 1794
  10. Maryland: December 26, 1794
  11. Delaware: January 23, 1795
  12. North Carolina: February 7, 1795

There were fifteen states at the time; ratification by twelve added the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. [6] (South Carolina ratified it on December 4, 1797.)

On January 8, 1798, approximately three years after the Eleventh Amendment's actual adoption, President John Adams stated in a message to Congress that it had been ratified by the necessary number of States and was now a part of the Constitution. [7] New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not take action on the amendment during that era; neither did Tennessee, which had become the 16th State on June 1, 1796. However, on June 25, 2018, the New Jersey Senate adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 75 to ratify the Eleventh Amendment. [8]

Impact

The Eleventh Amendment in the National Archives 11th Amendment Pg1of1 AC.jpg
The Eleventh Amendment in the National Archives

Almost exactly three years after its ratification, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Virginia , 3 U.S. 378 (1798) resulted in every pending action brought under Chisholm being dismissed due to the amendment's adoption.

Sovereign immunity

The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana , 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy later stated in Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

[S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself. ... Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.

However, Justice David Souter, writing for a four-Justice dissent in Alden, said the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. He read the amendment's text as reflecting a narrow form of sovereign immunity that limited only the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts. He concluded that neither the Eleventh Amendment in particular nor the Constitution in general insulates the states from suits by individuals. [9]

Application to federal law

Although the Eleventh Amendment grants immunity to states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law. The Court's ruling in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer , 427 U.S. 445 (1976) allows Congress to abrogate state immunity from suit under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment; this was broadened to include bankruptcy cases by Central Virginia Community College v. Katz , 546 U.S. 356 (2006), based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution. In Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia , 535 U.S. 613 (2002), the Supreme Court ruled that when a state invokes a federal court's removal jurisdiction, it waives the Eleventh Amendment in the removed case.

Territorial application

The amendment's applicability to unincorporated U.S. territories, where constitutional rights do not fully apply, remained unclear for nearly two centuries after its ratification. In 1983, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that Puerto Rico enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity. [10] However, subsequent rulings from other federal courts have determined that the other similarly unincorporated territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands, do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity. [11] [12] [13]

Treaties and foreign relations

International law scholar Thomas H. Lee argues that foreign states were intended to be excluded from the Eleventh Amendment's prohibition—i.e., that foreign governments would still be permitted to sue state governments. [14] However, in Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment also protects states from lawsuits by foreign entities, which Lee considers a departure from established jurisprudence; [15] his thesis is that the Eleventh Amendment exempted foreign governments in order to allow recourse for violations of treaty obligations, which in turn promoted positive and peaceful foreign relations between a fledgling U.S. and the international community. [15] Lee likewise argues that the Eleventh Amendment reflected the international legal principle of sovereign equality, whereby foreign states were of equal legal status to the U.S. states, and as such could bring lawsuits. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. State immunity is a similar, stronger doctrine, that applies to foreign courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Three of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Since the case was argued prior to the formal pronouncement of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent. 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.

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.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abrogation doctrine</span>

The abrogation doctrine is a US constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented.

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States about whether the United States Congress may use its Article I powers to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity from suits in its own courts, thereby allowing citizens to sue a state in state court without the state's consent.

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.

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons when sued for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

<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.

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding Congress' power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states.

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Constitution's prohibition on lawsuits against the federal government did not extend to officers of the government themselves. The case involved the heir of Mary Anna Custis Lee, wife of Confederate States of America General Robert E. Lee, who sued to regain control of Arlington House and its grounds. Arlington had been seized by the United States government in 1861 and eventually converted into Arlington National Cemetery. The estate had been sold to pay outstanding taxes, but the lawsuit contested the tax sale as improper. A jury found in favor of the Lees. The Supreme Court, too, concluded that the tax sale was illegal. In stripping the federal officers of their sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court agreed that suit against them was proper.

<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.

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.

PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the sovereign immunity of states to delegated powers of eminent domain granted to private companies from federal agencies, in the specific case, acquiring property for the right-of-way to build a natural gas pipeline. The Court, in a 5–4 decision issued in June 2021, ruled that states, by nature of ratifying the Constitution, gave up their ability to exercise sovereign immunity from the federal government or from those parties whom they have delegated that authority.

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 597 U.S. 580 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and state sovereign immunity. In a 5–4 decision issued in June 2022, the Court ruled that state sovereign immunity does not prevent states from being sued under federal law related to the nation's defense.

References

  1. ↑ "Annotation 1 – Eleventh Amendment – State Immunity". FindLaw . Archived from the original on June 25, 2013. Retrieved May 4, 2013.
  2. ↑ Susan Gluck Mezey, 2006. "The Eleventh Amendment Archived 2017-12-08 at the Wayback Machine ". Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia Archived 2017-11-25 at the Wayback Machine .
  3. ↑ "4 Annals of Congress 477 (1795)". Archived from the original on October 20, 2017. Retrieved April 18, 2014.
  4. ↑ "4 Annals of Congress 30 (1795)". Archived from the original on February 6, 2018. Retrieved April 18, 2014.
  5. ↑ "The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 26, 2013" (PDF). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2013. p. 42. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 25, 2014. Retrieved April 13, 2014.
  6. ↑ "U.S. Timeline 1790-1799". America's Best History. Retrieved February 5, 2021.
  7. ↑ "7 Annals of Congress 809 (1798)". Archived from the original on February 6, 2018. Retrieved April 18, 2014.
  8. ↑ "New Jersey SCR75 | 2018–2019 | Regular Session". LegiScan. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
  9. ↑ "Dissenting opinion in Alden v. Maine". Legal Information Institute . Retrieved June 23, 2020.
  10. ↑ "Ramirez v. Puerto Rico Fire Service and Office of Personnel (1st Cir. 1983)". Casemine. Retrieved June 23, 2020.
  11. ↑ Guam Soc. of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada, 776 F.Supp. 1422 (D.Guam 1990)
  12. ↑ Norita v. Northern Mariana Islands, 331 F.3d 690 (9th Cir 2003)
  13. ↑ Tonder v. M/V The Burkholder, 630 F.Supp. 691 (D.Virgin Islands 1986)
  14. ↑ Lee, Thomas H., The U.S. Supreme Court as Quasi-International Tribunal: Reclaiming the Court's Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Treaty-Based Suits By Foreign States Against States. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 104, No. 7, November 2004, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 55, Available at SSRN: SSRN   575583
  15. 1 2 "The Origins and Fall of Treaty Supremacy and Its Significance". Opinio Juris. 2017-02-15. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
  16. ↑ Thomas H. Lee, Making Sense of the Eleventh Amendment: International Law and State Sovereignty, 96 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1027 (2001-2002) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/407
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.