Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
Template:Short description Template:US Constitution article series
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.
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 applies 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 SectionTemplate:Nbsp5 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.
TextEdit
BackgroundEdit
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, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:2
|2 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:419
|{{#ifeq:|no
|419{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 419{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 419{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 419{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 419{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:1793| (1793) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:2
|2 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}}.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 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 Three of the United States Constitution#Section 2|Article III, SectionTemplate:Nbsp2]] of the Constitution, which gives diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."<ref>Susan Gluck Mezey (2006). "The Eleventh Amendment" (Template:Webarchive). Federalism in America: An Encyclopedia (Template:Webarchive.</ref>
Proposal and ratificationEdit
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,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> having been previously passed by the Senate, 23–2, on January 14, 1794.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The amendment was ratified by the state legislatures of the following states:<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
- New York: March 27, 1794
- Rhode Island: March 31, 1794
- Connecticut: May 8, 1794
- New Hampshire: June 16, 1794
- Massachusetts: June 26, 1794
- Vermont: November 9, 1794
- Virginia: November 18, 1794
- Georgia: November 29, 1794
- Kentucky: December 7, 1794
- Maryland: December 26, 1794
- Delaware: January 23, 1795
- North Carolina: February 7, 1795
There were fifteen states at the time; ratification by twelve added the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> (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.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
ImpactEdit
Almost exactly three years after its ratification, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:3
|3 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:378
|{{#ifeq:|no
|378{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 378{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 378{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 378{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 378{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:1798| (1798) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:3
|3 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}} resulted in every pending action brought under Chisholm being dismissed due to the amendment's adoption.
Sovereign immunityEdit
The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:134
|134 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:1
|{{#ifeq:|no
|1{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 1{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 1{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 1{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 1{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:1890| (1890) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:134
|134 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}}, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy later stated in Alden v. Maine, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:527
|527 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:706
|{{#ifeq:|no
|706{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 706{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 706{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 706{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 706{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:1999| (1999) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:527
|527 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}}: Template:Quote
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.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Application to federal lawEdit
Although the Eleventh Amendment grants immunity to states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:209
|209 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:123
|{{#ifeq:|no
|123{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 123{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 123{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 123{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 123{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:1908| (1908) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:209
|209 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}}, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law. The Court's ruling in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:427
|427 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:445
|{{#ifeq:|no
|445{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 445{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 445{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 445{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 445{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:1976| (1976) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:427
|427 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}} allows Congress to abrogate state immunity from suit under [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 5: Power of enforcement|SectionTemplate:Nbsp5 of the Fourteenth Amendment]]; this was broadened to include bankruptcy cases by Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:546
|546 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:356
|{{#ifeq:|no
|356{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 356{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 356{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 356{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 356{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:2006| (2006) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:546
|546 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}}, based on [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Article I, Section 8, ClauseTemplate:Nbsp4]] of the Constitution. In Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:535
|535 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:613
|{{#ifeq:|no
|613{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 613{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 613{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 613{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 613{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:2002| (2002) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:535
|535 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}}, 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 applicationEdit
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.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 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.<ref>Guam Soc. of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada, 776 F.Supp. 1422 (D.Guam 1990)</ref><ref>Norita v. Northern Mariana Islands, 331 F.3d 690 (9th Cir 2003)</ref><ref>Tonder v. M/V The Burkholder, 630 F.Supp. 691 (D.Virgin Islands 1986)</ref>
Treaties and foreign relationsEdit
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.<ref>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: Template:SSRN</ref> However, in Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, {{#ifeq:no|no |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{#ifexist:{{{name}}}
|{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
|{{{name}}}
|[[{{{name}}}]]
}}
|{{{name}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:|No. {{#ifeq:|no
|{{{docket}}},
|{{#switch:{{{source}}}
|f = {{{docket}}}
|#default = {{{docket}}}
}},
}}
}}{{#if:292
|292 |___
}} {{#ifeq:|no
|US |U.S.
}} {{#if:|({{{5}}} {{{4}}}) }}{{#if:313
|{{#ifeq:|no
|313{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}|}}
|{{#switch:
|f = 313{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|o = 313{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|w = 313{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
|#default = 313{{#if:|, {{{pin}}}}}
}}
}}
|___
}}{{#if:
|, slip op. at {{{slip}}}
}}{{#if:1934| (1934) }} |{{#if:
|{{#if:
|[[{{{link}}}|{{{name}}}]],
|{{{name}}},
}}
}}{{#if:292
|292 {{#ifeq:|no
|US
|U.S.
}}
|}}{{#if:
|at {{{pin}}}
|{{#if:
|slip op. at {{{slip}}}
|at ___
}}
}} }}{{#if:
| ({{{dissenter}}}, {{#if:
|{{{dissent-type}}}
|dissenting
}})
|{{#if:
| ({{{concurrer}}}, {{#if:
|{{{concurrence-type}}}
|concurring
}})
}}
}}, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment also protects states from lawsuits by foreign entities, which Lee considers a departure from established jurisprudence;<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> 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.<ref>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</ref>
See alsoEdit
- Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida