Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution

Original text of the Constitution Preamble

Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII

Amendments to the Constitution Bill of Rights
I∙ II∙ III∙ IV∙ V
VI∙ VII∙ VIII∙ IX∙ X

Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII

Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit

Amendment XI in the National Archives

The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) of the United States Constitution was passed by the U.S. Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795. This Amendment deals with each State's sovereign immunity respecting federal lawsuits. This Amendment was adopted in response to, and in order to overrule, the United States Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

1 Text
2 Summary
3 Proposal and ratification
4 References
5 External links

Text

“ 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. ”

Summary

The Amendment was passed after the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity against states by private citizens, and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Thus, the Amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

Although the Amendment's text does not, by its own terms, include suits brought by a citizen against his own state, the Supreme Court held, in Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890), that the Amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

“ [S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[1]”

Writing for four dissenting Justices, Justice David Souter said the states surrendered their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. The dissenters read the text of the Amendment as reflecting only a narrow form of sovereign immunity, limiting diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, and they do not believe the structure of the Constitution insulates states from suits by individuals.[2]

Sovereign immunity jurisprudence confers on non-consenting states immunity from suit for money damages or equitable relief. Nonetheless, federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law under Ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the Congress, under the enforcement provision (Section 5) of the Fourteenth Amendment, may abrogate state immunity from suit. See, e.g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976). Also, in Central Virginia Community College v. Katz 546 U.S. 356 (2006), the Court narrowed the scope of its previous sovereign immunity rulings, and held that the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I abrogated state sovereign immunity.