|
)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
11th Amendment
The Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1795, states that 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...".
The Amendment was passed as a reaction to Chisholm v. Georgia,
2 U.S (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), where the Supreme Court
found that it had jurisdiction when the executor of a South
Carolina estate brought an action to recover the debt the state
of Georgia owed his decedent.
The amendment recognizes that states have a certain degree of
sovereign immunity. They are not mere subordinates to the federal
government but instead virtual quasi-sovereigns. While the
original Constitution gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over
States when non-citizens brought actions against them, the 11th
amendment was a legitimate change to the original Constitution,
ratified by three-fourths of the states and binding as a limit on
judicial power. Only future amendments could abrogate such
constitutional sovereign immunity.
Originally the 11th Amendment only forbade actions by
non-citizens against a defendant state. But Hans v. Louisiana,
134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890) extended the
doctrine of such sovereign immunity, holding that the 11th
Amendment barred suit even by citizens of that defendant state.
All private parties were subject to the amendment, although other
states and the federal government could still bring actions
against a state.
Where Federalism had created a tension between state and federal
sovereignty, the 11th amendment had tried to resolve such tension
in favor of the states. The result, however, was that states
became virtually immune to federal law, since private parties
could not sue. To avoid such problems, the Supreme Court
eventually adopted the legal fiction of the Stripping Doctrine, which
recognizes that private parties can sue state officers in their
official capacity for injunctive relief.
"The judicial power"
Federal courts derive their power (jurisdiction) from Article
III of our Constitution. That article creates one Supreme Court
and such inferior federal courts (trial and intermediate
appellate) as Congress ordains and establishes. The power
exercised by federal courts is the "judicial power",
the power to hear and decide "cases and controversies"
within 9 enumerated areas. For a look at the structure of
judicial power under Article III see the Article
III flowchart. For the limits of federal jurisdiction, see
the Justiciability flowchart.
The 11th Amendment does not touch on Legislative or Executive
power, and states are not immune to their jurisdiction. Although
the Supreme Court has never decided whether or not the 11th
Amendment applies to suits against States in federal
administrative courts (which do not formally exercise
"judicial power"), basic principles of federalism and
state sovereignty would suggest that States cannot be sued there
either.
...of the United States...
By its terms, the 11th Amendment applies only to suits
against States in federal courts. State courts can hear such
cases, although the Supreme Court has found States not suable in
state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (but not on 11th Amendment
grounds).
While the Supreme Court has never decided the issue, basic
principles of federalism and state sovereignty would suggest
States cannot be sued in federal administrative courts either (as
they are federal bodies).
"...shall not be construed to
extend..."
The 11th Amendment recognizes a degree of sovereign immunity
on the parts of the States. States are immune to actions brought
by citizens in federal courts against them. But while the 11th
Amendment provides States with such immunity from the outset,
States can choose to waive
their immunity. In certain circumstances such a waiver must be
unequivocally expressed, while in others mere litigation waiver
will suffice (ie.the State chooses to remove the action from a
state court to a federal court).
"...to any suit in law or
equity..."
Nominally, the amendment provides immunity to States from
actions in both law and equity (ie.from both money damages and
injunctive relief). But with the advent of the Stripping Doctrine, which
allows citizens to sue state officials, the federal courts have
drawn a line between injunctive
and monetary relief.
Courts are willing to allow actions against state officers
because foreclosure of such actions would ensure that no method
existed of allowing enforcement of federal laws against the
states. But they uphold the legal fiction that state officers can
be sued in their official
capacity even though they supposedly acted outside their
official authority only to the extent of providing injunctive
relief. Private parties cannot sue state officers in their
official capacity for monetary damages, as such money would in
reality come from the State treasury (depriving the states, as
such, of their sovereign immunity). However, private citizens can
sue state officers in their official capacity for injunctive
relief and also bring monetary damage actions against them
in their individual capacity.
"...commenced or prosecuted
against..."
While States have a degree of sovereign immunity (as
quasi-sovereigns), and cannot be sued in federal courts, they
themselves can choose to bring actions there.
Note that while the 11th Amendment gives States immunity from
actions by private parties (ie.citizens and private
corporations), other States and the United States itself can
still sue a State in federal court.
"...one of the United
States..."
A State is a broad body, with many agencies and departments.
All such non-political subdivisions of a State are immune under
the 11th Amendment. However, the Stripping Doctrine extends to
them as well, and private parties can bring actions against the
officers of a state agency.
The 11th Amendment does not give political subdivisions of a
State, such as a municipality, sovereign immunity. Private
parties can bring actions against cities and their agencies. To
determine whether a particular agency is an arm of the state or
municipality, the courts will look to state law. In bringing such
actions one has to be careful because certain agencies act in one
capacity as a state agency, and in another capacity as a
municipal agency; they can only be sued in their capacity as a
municipal body.
"...by Citizens of another
State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
On its face, the 11th Amendment allows a State immunity from actions by
non-citizens and foreigners (nominally applied to diversity suits
only, but now extended to federal question jurisdiction).
However, the Supreme Court in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S.
1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890) extended such sovereign
immunity to actions brought by citizens of the defendant state as
well. Now no citizen of the United States can sue a State. To
ensure that States would not escape Federal law the courts
created the Stripping Doctrine
which allows citizens to bring actions against state officers in
their official capacity
for injunctive relief.
Stripping Doctrine
In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme
Court provided an important exception to the 11th Amendment sovereign immunity States
enjoy: the Stripping Doctrine.
The Stripping Doctrine is a legal fiction which allows injunctive
relief against what are essentially state actions. While the 11th
Amendment immunizes States
from actions by private parties, the Stripping Doctrine argues
that when a state
officer takes an unconstitutional action, she acts beyond the
scope of her authority, as no State could have authorized her to
act unconstitutionally. When acting outside such authority the
officer was "stripped" of her official power and cannot
invoke the State's immunity, although she remains subject to the
consequences of her official conduct.
The doctrine is a legal fiction because the officer, in acting
unconstitutionally, was outside her official duties, but the
citizen can now sue her for injunctive relief in her official
capacity. Unless a citizen can enjoin the action the officer took
in her official capacity, no remedy could be provided for an
otherwise unconstitutional action (as the State itself is immune
from prosecution).
Suits Naming State Officers
While actions brought by private parties cannot name States as defendants, they
can name State officers as defendants. The Stripping Doctrine provides
that since a State could not authorize its agent to act
unconstitutionally, the agent was acting outside her authority
and cannot invoke the State's sovereign immunity, even though
they remain responsible for their official conduct.
Suits Naming States
Our federal government is one of enumerated powers, and those
powers not given to it either by the Constitution or the by
nature of federal sovereign power are retained by the states. As
such, states are virtual quasi-sovereigns in our system. While
tension exists between state and federal government due to the
nature of our dual-sovereign system, the 11th amendment resolves
a part of that conflict in favor of the states.
While the Framers disagreed on whether Article III abrogated
state sovereignty, framers such as James Madison and Alexander
Hamilton argued that states could not, in certain circumstances,
be hailed into federal court. In the wake of Chisholm v.
Georgia, 2 U.S (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), where the
Supreme Court found it had jurisdiction over a State in an action
brought by a non-citizen, the 11th amendment was enacted to
prevent such future results.
Unless abrogated by an
action brought under the 14th Amendment, the 11th Amendment
provides these quasi-sovereigns with sovereign immunity: private
parties cannot bring actions, in law or equity, against States
without the State's consent.
Injunctive Relief
The Supreme Court's decisions in Ex Parte Young, 209
U.S. 123 (1908), and Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651
(1974), hold that federal courts may grant injunctions against
unconstitutional actions taken by State officers. Since the
officers were acting outside the scope of what a State could
authorize them to do they were stripped of their power, and their
official actions are as such void. Such relief is necessary to
protect the Constitution's Supremacy Clause; otherwise, immune
states could take unconstitutional actions with impunity,
invalidating the supremacy of our Constitution.
Damages
The Supreme Court's decision in Edelman v. Jordan, 415
U.S. 651 (1974) held that when private parties sue State officers in their
official capacity, federal courts could not award retroactive
monetary relief (ie.money damages). Courts refuse to extend the
legal fiction of the Stripping
Doctrine to monetary relief since awarding damages would
eliminate the constitutional immunity States have
under the 11th Amendment. The damages would be coming from the
coffers of the State Treasury. Injunctive relief against
future conduct provides effective protection of the Supremacy
Clause, and courts see money damages as prohibited by the 11th
Amendment.
Federal Question Claim
While the Supreme Court has recognized that states have a
degree of sovereign immunity,
the Court continues to uphold the supremacy of federal law. The
Court has held that States cannot be sued in federal court even
on federal question claims without their consent. But while the
11th Amendment may shield the state
from suits in federal court, the amendment cannot bar review
of state court judgments in a federal question context. The
Supremacy Clause by its nature requires that the Supreme Court be
capable of reviewing federal questions, and the 11th Amendment
cannot immunize a state from such review.
Pendant State Claim
The Supreme Court held in Penhurst State School &
Hospital v. Halderman, 456 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.
2d 67 (1984) that supplemental state claims that States have
violated State law cannot be heard by federal courts. The basis
for the Stripping Doctrine
was that it was necessary to protect the supremacy of the
Constitution. "A federal court's grant of relief against
state officials on the basis of state law, whether prospective or
retroactive, does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal
law". The Court concluded that the Stripping Doctrine is
inapplicable in an action against a state or a state officer
based on state law; as such, states are immune from prosecution
in federal court in such actions.
Officer Named in Individual
Capacity
While the Supreme Court has held that only injunctive relief can be
awarded against a state
officer sued in his official
capacity, retroactive monetary relief can be granted against
an officer sued in his individual capacity. Bringing an action
against an officer in his individual capacity does not implicate
state sovereignty.
Officer Named in Official
Capacity
The 11th Amendment grants states sovereign immunity, but the Stripping Doctrine allows
State officers to be sued in their official capacities. When an
officer acts unconstitutionally, he acts outside what a state
could have authorized him to do, and has been
"stripped" of his power.
To effectuate the Supremacy Clause, state officers can be sued in
their official capacity over their official conduct (even though
at the time stripped of their power), so long as the plaintiffs
seek only injunctive relief.
Where state officers are sued in their official capacities,
federal courts cannot award monetary relief, since doing so would
strip the states of their sovereign immunity (the money is coming
from their treasuries).
Explicit State Waiver
While the 11th Amendment provides States with sovereign immunity to
prosecution by private parties in federal courts, States can
choose to waive their immunity. In certain circumstances such a
waiver must be unequivocally expressed, while in others mere
litigation waiver will suffice (ie.the State chooses to remove
the action from a state court to a federal court).
Explicit § 5 Override
The original Constitution allowed States to be hailed into
federal courts by private parties. But that constitution was
amended with the consensus of three-fourths of the states in
1798, when the 11th Amendment was adopted. The 11th Amendment
specifically removed such authority from federal courts.
But the Constitution was amended again in 1868 to protect various
civil rights, and § 5 of that Amendment granted Congress the
power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of
that amendment. The courts have recognized that this new
amendment, again a consensus of the people, abrogates the
immunity provided by the 11th amendment. When Congress enacts
legislation under the auspices of §5 of the 14th Amendment they
can specifically abrogate 11th amendment immunity, and states can
under such federal statutes be prosecuted in federal courts.
However, in Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S.
234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), the Supreme Court
said that while Congress can use its 14th Amendment power to
override a State's 11th Amendment protection, it must speak
clearly. "General authorization for suit in a federal court
is not the kind of unequivocal statutory language sufficient to
abrogate the 11th Amendment. When Congress chooses to subject the
states to federal jurisdiction it must do so specifically."
Note that those powers given to Congress in the original
Constitution cannot be used to abrogate 11th Amendment immunity.
The people chose to amend that Constitution to limit federal
power, and, for example, Congress cannot use its power to
regulate interstate commerce to abrogate 11th Amendment immunity,
as that power was amended in 1798.
Permitted
When an action brought by private parties names a state officer in her official capacity as a
defendant, federal courts have the jurisdiction to hear it and
grant injunctive relief.
Courts permit such actions and such relief to protect the
supremacy of the federal Constitution.
Barred
The 11th Amendment recognizes that states are
quasi-sovereigns who possess a degree of sovereign immunity, and that
they cannot be hailed into federal court by private parties. When
an action names a State
as a defendant, or seeks monetary
relief from a State officer in her official capacity, federal
courts are barred by the 11th Amendment from hearing such an
action.
End of Text Assist