fbpx

Eleventh Amendment and State Immunity

Historical Context and Ratification

The Eleventh Amendment emerged from debates during the Constitution's ratification. Anti-Federalists worried Article III would allow federal courts to hear disputes involving states and citizens from other states or foreign nations. Federalists tried to allay these concerns, but skepticism persisted.

The Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, allowing a suit against Georgia by a South Carolina citizen, caused an uproar. Congress swiftly proposed the Eleventh Amendment in response:

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.

Early court decisions didn't interpret this Amendment broadly. In Cohens v. Virginia, the Court argued that appellate jurisdiction over federal questions wasn't limited by the Eleventh Amendment.

Hans v. Louisiana expanded Eleventh Amendment immunity, making states untouchable in lawsuits by their own citizens and in federal law cases. The Court suggested that Chisholm had erred from the start.

This broader interpretation sparked controversy. Debates about state sovereignty and federal judicial power intensified. Yet, the courts stood firm. Sovereign immunity flourished, with courts expanding the doctrine further. Seminole Tribe v. Florida and Alden v. Maine reinforced state immunity against federal claims.

States can waive their immunity under certain conditions. But the core principle remains that states cannot be sued without their explicit consent, establishing a clear boundary in the balance of power within our federal system.

A group of Founding Fathers engaged in heated debate over the Constitution

Text and Early Interpretations

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.

In Cohens v. Virginia, the Supreme Court concluded that an appeal of an existing case wasn't a new suit against Virginia, and the Eleventh Amendment didn't apply because the appellants were Virginians.

Hans v. Louisiana broadened the interpretation, ruling that the Amendment rested on a larger principle of sovereign immunity. States shouldn't be forced into federal court against their will, without their consent. This reading dismissed Hans's suit and hinted that Chisholm had been wrong from the start.

These decisions set the tone for an expansive view of state sovereignty. Later rulings expanded this sovereign immunity concept further. States were becoming untouchable.

This sparked debates over federal versus state power. Some saw it as undermining federal laws, while others praised it as a return to the original power balance. The result was clear: States held significant sovereignty, protected by a robust Eleventh Amendment shield.

Expansion of State Sovereign Immunity

The Supreme Court expanded state sovereign immunity beyond the Eleventh Amendment's text. Key rulings include:

  • Ex parte New York (No. 1): The Court decided that state immunity included admiralty suits, even though the Amendment only mentioned "suit in law or equity."
  • Lapides v. Board of Regents: Ruled that Georgia waived its immunity by moving a case to federal court after agreeing to be sued in state court.
  • Alden v. Maine: Declared that states kept their sovereign immunity in their own courts and that Congress couldn't remove that protection.
  • Seminole Tribe v. Florida: Declared that Congress couldn't override Eleventh Amendment immunity under Article I.
  • Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority: Ruled that state immunity applied even in quasi-judicial proceedings of federal agencies.

The trend was clear: The courts supported a broad, almost invincible state immunity. States became untouchable unless they explicitly consented to be sued.

These expansions have created a legal landscape where states operate with nearly limitless immunity, only yielding to federal will when absolutely necessary or explicitly stated by Congress. This strong view of state immunity underscores a federal system where states retain their long-standing sovereignty, even against federal legislative efforts.1

A symbolic shield representing state sovereignty protecting a state capitol building from federal arrows

Congressional Abrogation and Exceptions

Congress can sometimes override state sovereign immunity, but it's not easy. The Fourteenth Amendment is key here. Section 5 gives Congress power to enforce the Amendment through legislation, which has been used to challenge state immunity.

In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, the Supreme Court allowed congressional abrogation using the Fourteenth Amendment for discrimination cases. But Seminole Tribe v. Florida limited this power, ruling Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to breach state immunity. Alden v. Maine further restricted Congress, holding that state immunity extends to state courts.

The takeaway? Congress can only override state immunity using the Fourteenth Amendment, and even then, the Supreme Court checks if there's:

  • Clear intent
  • "Appropriate legislation"
  • A "congruence and proportionality" test, allowing abrogation only for clear, compelling needs with balanced means

So Congress can sometimes abrogate state immunity, but it's a tricky dance requiring constitutional justification and Supreme Court approval.

Members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices engaged in a symbolic tug-of-war over state immunity

State Sovereign Immunity in State Courts

State sovereign immunity isn't just for federal courts – it applies in state courts too. The 1999 case Alden v. Maine made this clear. Maine probation officers tried to sue the state for overtime pay under federal law, but the Supreme Court ruled for Maine. States have immunity in their own courts unless they consent to being sued.

States handle this differently:

  • Some put immunity in their constitutions
  • Others use legislation to specify when they can be sued
  • There are also special exceptions where immunity can be waived

Georgia, for example, holds tight to immunity in its constitution. California allows some claims under certain conditions. Texas takes a middle ground, protecting sovereignty but allowing some suits.

Alden v. Maine emphasized that states are sovereign entities with deep constitutional roots. They're part of the federal system but maintain control over their judicial affairs.

Modern Implications and Controversies

State sovereign immunity isn't just old law – it's a current battleground. It affects federal civil rights enforcement, with states using it to avoid accountability. For instance, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001) ruled states immune from private ADA lawsuits, limiting options for disabled employees1.

This immunity also impacts the balance between state and federal power. Cases like Seminole Tribe v. Florida and Alden v. Maine have strengthened state barriers against federal mandates. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019) further reinforced state power, ruling that states can't be sued in other states' courts2.

The effects extend to:

  • Public health
  • Safety
  • Environmental regulations
  • Immigration laws

States can use immunity to resist federal attempts at uniform nationwide regulations. For example, sovereign immunity has hindered EPA efforts to hold state entities accountable for environmental law violations3.

"Civil rights groups and federal agencies see sovereign immunity as obstructing justice and accountability. Others view it as a crucial protection against federal overreach."

This tension between federal reach and state sovereignty remains a hotly debated issue in modern American law and politics.

The Eleventh Amendment reinforces state sovereignty within our federal system. It protects states from lawsuits without their consent, maintaining their autonomy while part of the Union. This balance of power remains a key element of our constitutional framework.