Eleventh Amendment

Introduction

The Eleventh Amendment provides: “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.” Ratified in 1795, the Eleventh Amendment was adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state. The amendment restored the understanding that states possess sovereign immunity from private suits, a principle deeply rooted in the common law.

The Eleventh Amendment has been interpreted expansively to encompass suits against a state by its own citizens and suits in state court, despite the amendment’s narrow text. The modern doctrine of state sovereign immunity protects states from private suits in federal court regardless of the plaintiff’s citizenship and, in some circumstances, in state court as well.

Historical Background

The Eleventh Amendment was a direct response to Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), in which the Supreme Court held that Article III’s grant of federal jurisdiction over controversies between a state and citizens of another state permitted a citizen of South Carolina to sue Georgia to recover property confiscated during the Revolutionary War. The decision provoked immediate controversy, with states objecting that it violated their sovereign dignity and financial interests.

Congress proposed the Eleventh Amendment just two days after the Chisholm decision, and it was ratified in 1795. The amendment reversed Chisholm by providing that the judicial power of the United States does not extend to suits against a state by citizens of another state or foreign citizens. Scholars debate whether the amendment was intended to restore the original understanding of Article III or to create a new constitutional immunity.

The Scope of State Sovereign Immunity

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to confer broader immunity than its text suggests. In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Court held that states may not be sued in federal court by their own citizens, even though the amendment’s text only bars suits by citizens of other states and foreign states. The Court reasoned that the amendment confirms a pre-existing principle of sovereign immunity that bars all private suits against non-consenting states in federal court.

State sovereign immunity extends to suits for monetary damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. It applies regardless of the legal basis for the suit, whether federal law, state law, or the Constitution itself. The immunity protects the state itself, state agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacity. It does not protect local governments, counties, municipalities, or school districts, which are considered subdivisions of the state and may not share the state’s immunity.

Exceptions to State Sovereign Immunity

Several exceptions permit suits against states in federal court. Congressional abrogation allows Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity when it acts pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provided the abrogation is clearly stated and is congruent and proportional to the constitutional violation (City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997). Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity when legislating under Article I powers such as the Commerce Clause (Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 1996).

State consent permits suits against a state when the state expressly waives its immunity. Consent must be unambiguous and may not be implied. States may condition waiver on specific terms, such as limitations on damages or venue.

The Ex parte Young (1908) exception permits suits against state officers for prospective injunctive relief to remedy ongoing violations of federal law. The doctrine treats the officer’s conduct as state action for sovereign immunity purposes but permits the suit because the officer has no authority to act unconstitutionally. The Ex parte Young exception applies only to suits seeking prospective relief, not damages, and requires a continuing violation of federal law.

Suits by the United States or other states are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The federal government may sue states to enforce federal law, and states may sue other states to resolve interstate disputes. Bankruptcy proceedings and admiralty cases also have limited exceptions to state sovereign immunity.

State Sovereign Immunity in State Court

The extent to which the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in their own courts is a complex question. The Supreme Court held in Alden v. Maine (1999) that the principle of state sovereign immunity, confirmed by the Eleventh Amendment, bars private suits against non-consenting states in state court when the suit seeks to enforce federal law. The Court recognized that sovereign immunity inheres in state sovereignty and that Congress cannot subject non-consenting states to private suits for damages in state court.

However, state sovereign immunity does not prevent private suits in state court to enforce state law. States may create causes of action against themselves through state statutes and may condition their consent on compliance with procedural requirements. State courts must apply federal law when enforcing federal rights, but states may assert sovereign immunity as a defense.

Section 5 Enforcement

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation. When Congress acts under Section 5, it may abrogate state sovereign immunity, subject to the congruence and proportionality test. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court held that Section 5 legislation must exhibit congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented and the means adopted to that end.

Congress may validly abrogate sovereign immunity when enforcing rights that the Supreme Court has recognized as fundamental under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976), the Court upheld Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as a valid abrogation of state sovereign immunity. The Court has also upheld abrogation for suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act in cases involving access to courts and other fundamental rights, but has limited abrogation in other ADA contexts.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Amendment confirms state sovereign immunity from private suits in federal court, a principle that extends beyond the amendment’s narrow text to protect states from suits by their own citizens and in some contexts in state court. The amendment reflects the constitutional structure of dual sovereignty, under which states possess inherent dignity and immunity as component governments within the federal system. The exceptions to state sovereign immunity — including congressional abrogation under Section 5, state consent, and the Ex parte Young doctrine — ensure that federal law may be enforced against state officials while preserving the fundamental principle that states may not be sued without their consent.