Can you sue a state? The Eleventh Amendment's text is narrow, but the doctrine of state sovereign immunity is broad, and much of constitutional litigation against states runs through its exceptions. It began with a lawsuit four years after the Constitution took effect.
Why it works
Why read the amendment more broadly than its words? The Court's view, from Hans v. Louisiana (1890) on, is that the amendment did not create immunity; it restored an immunity the states had when they ratified the Constitution, which Chisholm wrongly overlooked. Hamilton had said so in Federalist No. 81: "It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent." On the other side, Brutus (essay XIII) had warned that Article III would let individuals sue states, and some justices and scholars argue that the amendment means only what it says.
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| Hans v. Louisiana (1890) | A state's own citizen may not sue it in federal court without its consent. |
| Ex parte Young (1908) | A suit for an injunction against a state officer to stop enforcing an unconstitutional law is allowed. |
| Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) | Congress may abrogate state immunity when it enforces the Fourteenth Amendment (Section 5). |
| Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), 5 to 4 | Congress may not abrogate state immunity using its Article I powers (overruling Pennsylvania v. Union Gas, 1989). |
| Alden v. Maine (1999) | States are also immune from private suits under federal law in their own courts. |
Key idea
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) let a citizen of another state sue Georgia; the Eleventh Amendment (1795) reversed it. Hans (1890) barred suits by a state's own citizens; Seminole Tribe (1996): Congress cannot abrogate immunity under Article I; Ex parte Young (1908): suits against state officers for injunctions are allowed.
Worked example: Can this suit go forward?
A worker sues State X in federal court for back pay under a federal wage law passed under the commerce power. Then she sues the state labor commissioner for an order requiring the state to follow the law from now on.
- Suit 1 is against the state itself, for money, under an Article I law: barred by sovereign immunity (Seminole Tribe; and Alden would bar it in state court too), unless the state consents.
- Suit 2 is against an officer, for prospective relief (an injunction): allowed under Ex parte Young.
- The United States itself could also sue the state; immunity protects states from private suits.
Answer: Suit 1 fails; suit 2 can proceed.
Worked example: When Congress can abrogate
Congress passes a law under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment letting people sue states for intentional race discrimination in employment. Is immunity abrogated?
- Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer: the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Eleventh and limits states; Congress may abrogate immunity under Section 5.
- The law must be valid Section 5 legislation (see Enforcing the Civil War Amendments) and must say clearly that it abrogates immunity.
- Targeting intentional race discrimination fits Section 5 well.
Answer: Yes, if Congress says so clearly and the law is valid Section 5 legislation.
Common mistake
Reading the Eleventh Amendment literally, as covering only suits by citizens of other states. The Court treats it as confirming a broader immunity that also bars suits by a state's own citizens (Hans), though some justices and scholars disagree. Check: who is suing, whom (state or officer), for what (money or an injunction), and under which power Congress acted.
This is an educational course, not legal advice.