Talk:Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

When it's one line, why remove the source text?

Why is the 11th amendment construed by the courts as forbidding a suit in federal court by a citizen against his own state, when it specifically says "another"? It sounds as if the courts are ignoring that word. Michael Hardy 19:51 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

The Supreme Court found that the Eleventh Amendment is merely confirmatory of a broader principle of immunity from suit that is inherent in the nature of states' sovereignty and was not surrendered by them in the constitution. The Chisholm vs. Georgia court mistakenly took that immunity away, and the Eleventh Amendment was adopted to restore the correct understanding. In recent years, state sovereign immunity has been commonly referred to as "Eleventh Amendment immunity" by the Supreme Court even while acknowledging that the principle of immunity is not limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment but arises out of the nature of statehood itself.--Pgva 21:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fitzpatrick

The article says that Fitzpatrick recognized that Congress may abrogate when doing so pursuant to a valid exercise of its powers, then goes on to say that the Fourteenth Amendment has been recognized as granting Congress such power. In doing so, the article conflates two distinct grounds for abrogation that have, at one time or another, been recognized as sufficient for Congress to abrogate. Fitzpatrick held that Congress could abrogate pursuant to its powers over interstate commerce. However, Fitzpatrick was expressly overruled in Seminole Tribe, where the Court said that the ONLY situation in which Congress may abrogate is pursuant to its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, as the Fourteenth was antecedent to ratification and by its very structure presupposed a certain surrender of sovereign immunity by the states to the federal government. The article is ambiguous about whether there are other situations under which Congress can abrogate, implying that there are. This is erroneous and should be corrected to reflect the Court's current jurisprudence on the subject of Congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity--i.e., that the only time Congress may abrogate is pursuant to its powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. -66.254.238.240 07:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On January 23, 2006, the court decided Central Va. Community College v. Katz and found that the Bankruptcy Clause "subordinated" state sovereignty. --Pgva 05:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but these are the only two contexts within which the power to abrogate has been recognized. The article's use of the phrase "pursuant to a valid exercise of [its] constitutional powers" is overly broad, as the Court said in Seminole Tribe that while the IGRA was a valid exercise of Congress' constitutional powers, it could not abrogate pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. The wording should be altered to reflect the fact that abrogation is a very, very limited doctrine and that the valid exercise of an Article I power usually does not suffice to sustain Congressional abrogation of state sovereign immunity. -66.254.235.11 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Katz held that the exercise of in rem jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts to invalidate preferential transfers to a state did not implicate sovereign immunity. Whatever abrogation of state sovereign immunity was necessary to give bankruptcy courts such a power was constitutional in origin, and not effectuated by a statute passed pursuant to an Article I power. Amcfreely 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of these details probably do not even belong in this article. The Abrogation doctrine article covers the topic in detail and it would probably be a good idea to avoid repetition here. ---Pgva 04:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The Eleventh Amendment is always implicated by abrogation doctrine. While it's good that there's a separate page devoted solely to abrogation, any adequate article on the Eleventh Amendment has to include an overview of the circumstances under which it's protection may be overridden. -66.254.235.11 07:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I think it would be okay to replace "a valid exercise of its constitutional powers" with "the Fourteenth Amendment". Also, Fitzpatrick was indeed a Fourteenth Amendment case. The case dealing with the commerce clause that Seminole Tribe overruled was Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. --Pgva 11:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

States that have "consented" / waived 11A

Can someone add a list of states that have consented or waived their 11th Amendment rights statutorily? (I'll eventually do it but it's pretty low on my to-do list ... someone else might know this off the top of her head.) --User:LQ

Yes, but what does it mean?

Nowhere in this article is there an explanation of what this amendment means. If I'm a citizen of another country, can I sue Arkansas in a Federal Court, yes or no? Can I sue Arkansas in an Arkansas court? Can I sue Arkansas in a Texas court? Can I sue the Federal government in an Arkansas court? And the same questions if I'm a citizen of Arkansas. Does this article even relate to any of these questions?

Somebody who understands what this is all about please elucidate. Many thanks. Macguba (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm a citizen of another country, can I sue Arkansas in a Federal Court, yes or no?

No, unless at least one of the following occurs:

1- the State waives its sovereign immunity in that case

2- the plaintiff is claiming a violation of a federal law which was passed pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the law purports to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment regarding lawsuits involving that law. Such abrogation must be done in "unmistakably clear language" (Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U.S. 279 (1973))

Can I sue Arkansas in a Texas court?

No. To sue a State, you must go to that State's court system or to the federal court system.

Can I sue the Federal government in an Arkansas court? And the same questions if I'm a citizen of Arkansas.

To sue the federal government, you must go to federal court. You may try to sue a State in its courts, but you will have to deal with that State's sovereign immunity under its State constitution and under the Eleventh Amendment (Alden v. Maine 527 U.S. 706 (1999)).

Does this article even relate to any of these questions?

Yes, except for the one about the federal government. Federal sovereign immunity is covered here.

I hope my answers helped clear up this topic for you. SMP0328. (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting fact

Apparently during the interim between Chisholm and the eleventh amendment's ratification, the Georgia state legislature debated a bill that would have made an attempt by a U.S. marshal to serve a writ in a Chisholm-type case a crime punishable by hanging, and without benefit of clergy. This was reported in the Augusta Chronicle of Nov. 23, 1793, p. 3. I believe the bill was discussed on Nov. 19, 1793, and a vote was held on striking the portion of the bill describing the felony, which failed (8-19). This was evidently its second reading. The Georgia House is said to have passed the bill. William A. Fletcher, A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment: A Narrow Construction of an Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction Rather Than A Prohibition Against Jurisdiction, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 1033, 1058 (1983). Anyway, I'm not sure how to work it into the current article, so I thought I'd leave this here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read this also. I'm not sure how relevant it is to this article, but it is interesting. Maybe this fact can be added to Chisholm v. Georgia. SMP0328. (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Well given the high relevance of Chisholm to this article, and the fairly high relevance of Georgia's bill to a discussion of the aftermath of Chisholm, I think it's fairly relevant. At the very least it permits a filling out of the background of factors leading to this amendment. My understanding is the Georgia bill failed, and while there were similar proposals in its wake, these were all silenced by the Eleventh Amendment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The bill passed the Georgia House, but was not enacted. It's relevant only if there is reliable sourcing showing that helped convince the Congress to propose the Eleventh Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)