Soon after the Chisholm decision, Massachusetts was sued and John Hancock, in his final public act, summarized the outrage:. There are certain inherent principles in the Constitution. A consolidation of all the states into one Government, would at once endanger the Nation as a Republic, and eventually divide the States united, or eradicate its principles which we have contended for.
Once the issue reached Congress, it was seen by most lawmakers as a clear intrusion on state powers and required congressional action to address it, with Massachusetts Senator Caleb Strong introducing the amendment.
First, states can consent to be sued or waive their sovereign immunity. In Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia , the Georgia public university system was brought to state court.
But it voluntarily sought to remove the case to federal court. Therefore, it waived whatever immunity the 11th Amendment may have otherwise granted it. Ex parte Young Fitzpatrick v.
Bitzer Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Alden v. Maine Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett Lapides v. Hibbs Central Virginia Community College v. Katz More Recent Posts. Follow me. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, many debts were left unpaid.
The result of Chisholm v. The 11th Amendment, however, has never truly enjoyed the kind of sweeping effect it was, perhaps, meant to enjoy. The Meaning After the U. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn. Alden v. Maine At least three other approaches have attracted support. First, some argue that the Eleventh Amendment should be applied according to a simple literal reading of its text to bar suits against states by out-of-state citizens, and foreign citizens or subjects but only by these parties , even if their claim is based on federal law.
The accompanying commentaries present further scholarly views. While the states continue to enjoy broad sovereign immunity from suit, the Supreme Court does allow suits against state officers in certain circumstances, thus mitigating the effect of sovereign immunity. In particular, the Court does not read the Amendment to bar suits against state officers that seek court orders to prevent future violations of federal law. Moreover, suits by other states, and suits by the United States to enforce federal laws, are also permitted.
The Eleventh Amendment is thus an important part, but only a part, of a web of constitutional doctrines that shape the nature of judicial remedies against states and their officials for alleged violations of law. The Eleventh Amendment arose out of a dispute that began during the ratification debates over the meaning of Article III of the original Constitution.
Citizens or Subjects. Based partly on these assurances, the states ratified the Constitution in As written, the Eleventh Amendment appears to prevent federal courts from hearing any suit by an out-of-state or foreign citizen against a state, but does not prevent federal courts from hearing suits by citizens against their own states.
Louisiana by prohibiting a citizen of Louisiana from suing Louisiana in federal court. Both of these readings of the Eleventh Amendment contradict the text. The proponents of both readings seek to justify their preferred departure from the text by pointing out that applying the text as written would draw an arbitrary distinction between in- and out-of-state citizens.
They argue that it makes no sense to bar out-of-state citizens from suing a state, while allowing in-state citizens to do so. While agreeing that this disparity creates a problem, they disagree on the solution.
One group would expand Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the other group would narrow it. The apparent anomaly created by the text disappears, however, when one considers the Eleventh Amendment in historical context. Those who ratified the Amendment would not have understood its text to create any disparity between in- and out-of-state citizens because they did not understand the Constitution to authorize any suits against any states by any citizens.
Some background is helpful. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress could regulate states as opposed to individuals , but had no power to enforce its commands. At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan proposed giving Congress power to use military force to coerce states to comply with federal commands. This proposal was widely criticized on the ground that it could lead to a civil war, and was not adopted.
Instead, the Constitution gave Congress power to regulate individuals rather than states , thereby enabling the federal government to enforce its commands against individuals without confronting states.
0コメント