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.
After the U. Supreme Court ruled in that two South Carolina men could sue and collect debts from the State of Georgia, states-rights advocates in Congress and the states pushed for what became the Eleventh Amendment in 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.
The Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that state courts do not have to hear certain suits against the state, if those suits are based on federal law. Anti-Federalists who generally opposed the Constitution feared that this provision would allow individuals to sue states in federal court. Several prominent Federalists who generally favored the Constitution assured their critics that Article III would not be interpreted to permit a state to be sued without its consent.
However, some other Federalists accepted that Article III permitted suits against states, arguing that it would be just for federal courts to hold states accountable. One of these suits was Chisholm v. Georgia , in which a citizen of South Carolina Chisholm sued Georgia for unpaid debts it incurred during the War of Independence. Georgia claimed that federal courts were not allowed to hear suits against states, and refused to appear before the Supreme Court.
Several other suits against other states were pending at the time Chisholm was decided in , including Vassall v. Massachusetts , in which a British subject William Vassall sued Massachusetts for violating the Treaty of Peace by confiscating his property. In some early interpretations, the Amendment was not read expansively. In Cohens v. Virginia , the Court rejected a challenge to its jurisdiction to review a state court decision in a criminal case, in which Virginia prosecuted two brothers from Virginia for the crime of selling lottery tickets.
The Cohens defended on the ground that a federal statute authorized the lottery and ticket sales. In its decision in Hans v. It essentially disavowed the contrary language in Cohens. The Hans Court placed weight on the speed with which the Amendment was adopted, and suggested that Chisholm had erred in upholding jurisdiction under the original Constitution, which could not have contemplated individual suits against states.
As Congress in the twentieth century increasingly enacted regulatory legislation that applied to the states, questions arose about whether federal statutes could be enforced against states through suits in federal court. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer , the Court held that Congress could subject states to suit in federal court through laws enacted under its Fourteenth Amendment power to redress discriminatory state action.
In Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. There was no majority opinion, however. The Court quickly reversed itself on this issue. In Seminole Tribe v. Florida , the Court issued a majority opinion for five Justices holding that Congress lacked power to subject states to suit when it legislated under its Article I Commerce Clause powers. For example, as noted, suits by individuals against their own state have been barred; suits by foreign states are also barred.
The Court has further held that states enjoy immunity in state court from suits based on federal law. 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.
Thus, state officials--but not states--might be sued when the violate the Constitution, even when they do so in the name of the state. Ex Parte Young was in turn limited by the Court in Edelman v Jordan , holding that the Eleventh Amendment also bars suits against state officials for restitution or damages that will in fact be paid out of the state treasury.
In Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida , the Court indicated for the first time that Congress is without power under the Commerce Clause or Indian Commerce Clause to abrogate a state's sovereign immunity. In so doing, the Court overruled an earlier Pennsylvania v Union Gas , decision that found such authority to exist. According to the Court, only under the Fourteenth Amendment does the Congress have the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity.
In dissent, Justice Stevens warned of the far-reaching consequences of the Court's decision, which he called "a shocking affront to a co-equal branch of government. In Alden v Maine , the Court, by the same margin seen in Seminole and Printz , extended constitutional protection to states sued in their own STATE courts for federal law violations.
0コメント