JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Chisholm involved a form of party-based jurisdiction. A South Carolina citizen brought suit against the state of Georgia under a constitutional grant of federal judicial power over "controversies... between a State and Citizens of another State. .. ."' For ease of reference, we may call this form of party-based jurisdiction "statecitizen diversity" in order to distinguish it from the more familiar citizen-citizen diversity jurisdiction. In Chisholm, the Court held that this state-citizen diversity clause conferred jurisdiction to hear Chisholm's damage action against Georgia and that the clause abrogated any sovereign immunity defense to the suit that Georgia might otherwise have had. The eleventh amendment was passed immediately thereafter in order to overturn this result. The conventional modern view of the eleventh amendment is that it prohibits federal courts from exercising both party-based and subject matter-based jurisdiction over private citizens' suits against the states. This article suggests that the amendment originally had a more modest purpose: It was intended to require that the state-citizen diversity clause of article III be construed to confer federal jurisdiction only over disputes in which the state was a plaintiff. So construed, the clause was a more limited grant of jurisdiction than the Court in Chisholm had construed it to be. And so understood, the eleventh amendment forbade nothing, but merely required this limiting construction on the jurisdiction granted by the state-citizen diversity clause. This interpretation of the amendment is both strikingly simple and remarkably congruent with the available evidence concerning the circumstances surrounding the amendment and its passage. But the interpretation does not indicate whether state sovereign immunity to private suit in federal court exists under the Constitution viewed as a whole. Indeed, the interpretation eliminates what the Court has traditionally thought to be a partial answer provided by the amendment-that the amendment explicitly forbids suits brought against the states by out-of-state citizens. Thus, if the interpretation of the amendment suggested here is correct, it makes the question of state sovereign immunity to private suit more subtle, for 6. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. I ("The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Law of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority .); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Supp. V 1981). 7. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. I. a State to sue their own state in the federal courts, whilst the idea ofsuits by citizens of other states, or of foreign states, was indignantly repelled? Suppose that Congress, when proposing the Eleventh Amendment, had appended to it a proviso that nothing therein contained should prevent a State from being sued by its own citizens in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States: can we imagine that it would have been adopted by the States? The supposition ...
During the past dozen years the original meaning of the Eleventh Amendment has become a matter of active controversy, both among legal scholars and among the justices of the Supreme Court.' Modern Eleventh Amendment doctrine remains governed by the traditional view, which in gross outline holds that the amendment is a jurisdictional bar prohibiting the federal courts from hearing unconsented suits brought against states by out-ofstate citizens or by foreign citizens or subjects. 2 The principle from which the amendment derives, though not the text of the amendment, similarly bars unconsented suits brought by in-state citizens. 3 The amendment's bar may be avoided or overcome in a number of ways, the most significant of which are suits against individual state officers for prospective relief, 4 Congressional abrogation of the amendment by explicit statutory language, 5 and volun
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.