Constitution
The Eleventh Amendment: Suits Against States
The Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from hearing suits against a state brought by citizens of another state or of a foreign country.
The text
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.
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.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.
In plain English
The Amendment removes a category of cases from the federal courts: suits 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."
What it overruled. Article III, Section 2 had listed controversies "between a State and Citizens of another State." In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), the Supreme Court read that to allow a South Carolina citizen to sue Georgia in federal court. The Amendment reversed that result.
What it protects. States have a form of sovereign immunity: they may not be sued in federal court by out-of-state citizens or foreigners without their consent.
What it does not say. By its terms it does not mention suits by a state's own citizens, but the Court has read the Amendment to reflect a broader principle of state sovereign immunity. Suits against state officials seeking to stop ongoing violations of federal law may go forward.
It was ratified in 1795, the first amendment after the Bill of Rights.
What the Founders said
The concern was money. Many states owed debts from the Revolutionary War, and Chisholm opened the door to suits by creditors. In Federalist No. 81, Hamilton had written that "it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent," and that the Constitution did not change that. The Court's decision in Chisholm was seen as contradicting his assurance, and the states responded quickly.
Madison and John Marshall made similar statements at the Virginia convention in 1788, saying the clause would not permit private suits against states for debts. The Anti-Federalists had warned that it would.
Congress passed the Amendment in 1794 and it was ratified within a year, one of the fastest responses to a Court decision in American history.
How the courts have read it
- Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): a citizen of another state could sue Georgia in the Supreme Court; four of the five justices agreed. The Amendment overturned it.
- Hans v. Louisiana (1890): the Amendment's principle bars a state's own citizen from suing the state in federal court.
- Ex parte Young (1908): a federal court may enjoin a state officer from enforcing an unconstitutional law, a limit on state immunity.
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): Congress may not use its Article I commerce power to abrogate state sovereign immunity.
- Alden v. Maine (1999): states are also immune from private suits in their own courts under federal law, drawing on the constitutional structure.
- Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019): states are immune from private suits in the courts of other states.
- Allen v. Cooper (2020): Congress's attempt to remove state immunity in copyright cases failed.
Why it matters now
The Eleventh Amendment shows an early reminder that the Constitution can be amended to correct a Court decision. It was an early instance of the states saying that the document they had ratified did not mean what the justices said it meant.
Sovereign immunity makes sense as a part of federalism. A state that can be hauled into court by any plaintiff in the country is not a self-governing unit of a federal union. At the same time, immunity could shield a state from accountability for violating rights. The doctrine of Ex parte Young resolves the tension by allowing suits against officers for injunctions and prospective relief, while protecting state treasuries.
The Court's decisions since 1996 have been among the strongest enforcements of federalism in modern law. Critics regard the immunity doctrine as broader than the Amendment's text. Defenders answer that the Amendment confirmed a background principle of the Constitution that the text states only in part.