Background
Chatham County, Georgia owned, operated, and maintained the Causton Bluff Bridge, a drawbridge over the Wilmington River. On October 6, 2002, James Ludwig requested that the bridge be raised to allow his boat to pass. The bridge malfunctioned, and a section fell and collided with Ludwig's boat, causing damages in excess of $130,000. The Ludwigs submitted a claim for those damages to their insurer, Zurich Insurance, [1] which paid in accordance with the terms of their insurance policy.
District Court proceedings
Zurich then sought to recover the costs of the Ludwigs' claim by filing suit in admiralty against the county in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. [2] The District Court granted the County's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity. Though the County conceded that Eleventh Amendment immunity did not extend to counties, it nonetheless contended that it was immune under "the universal rule of state immunity from suit without the state's consent." [3] The District Court agreed, relying on the Fifth Circuit case Broward County v. Wickman [4] to conclude that sovereign immunity extends to counties and municipalities that, as here, "exercise power delegated from the State."
Court of Appeals decision and petition for certiorari
The Eleventh Circuit, which was bound to follow Wickman as Circuit precedent, [5] affirmed. The court acknowledged that the county could not assert an Eleventh Amendment immunity defense because, under Circuit precedent, the county did not qualify as an arm of the state. However, the court nonetheless concluded that a "residual immunity" had been carved out by American common law that protected political subdivisions such as Chatham County.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider "whether an entity that does not qualify as an 'arm of the State' for Eleventh Amendment purposes can nonetheless assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit." [6] The U.S. Solicitor General was granted leave to participate in oral argument, [7] and argued for the county's immunity.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion, which reversed the decision of the Eleventh Circuit. The Court ruled that the county was not entitled to immunity from Northern's suit because it had failed to demonstrate that it was acting as an "arm of the state" when it operated the bridge.
The Court first observed that states retained the sovereign immunity they enjoyed prior to ratification of the Constitution except to the extent altered by the Constitution itself or its amendments. Accordingly, the phrase "Eleventh Amendment immunity" was merely a "convenient shorthand," because the amendment itself was not the source of the sovereign immunity of the states. The relevant consequence of this was that only states and "arms of the state" possessed immunity from suits authorized by federal law. The Court had repeatedly refused to extend sovereign immunity to municipalities (of which counties are a class), even when they exercised delegated state power.
The county argued that Court precedent had recognized a more expansive "residual" immunity than that applied in the Eleventh Amendment context. The Court, however, asserted that it had only used the term "residual" to refer to the state sovereignty that survived the ratification of the Constitution. The only applicable test was whether the county was acting as an arm of the state, and Chatham County had already conceded in the lower court proceedings that it did not qualify. Furthermore, the Court noted that the question on which it granted certiorari was premised on the conclusion that the county was not an arm of the state.
The Court also rejected the county's alternative argument for a sovereign immunity applicable specifically to in personam admiralty suits, which would bar "cases arising from a county's exercise of core state functions with regard to navigable waters." The Court observed that any immunity extended to states in admiralty cases was simply an application of general principles of sovereign immunity, rather than any issues specific to suits in admiralty.
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 in federal court.
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.
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.
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.
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution abrogates state sovereign immunity. It is significant as one of only three cases allowing Congress to use an Article I power to authorize individuals to sue states, the others being PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey and Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety.
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.
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.
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.
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act."
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.
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.
Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case. The Eleventh Circuit originally ruled in favor of Franks, “denying [Lane] first amendment protection to subpoenaed testimony”. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2014. The case was decided on June 19, 2014.
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.
Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that U.S. states lack sovereign immunity from private lawsuits filed against them in the courts of another state. The majority opinion held that "nothing in the Constitution authorizes or obligates" states to grant sister states immunity in court. States may grant sister states immunity if they choose. This decision was overturned by the 2019 case Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt.
Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.
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.
