The Eleventh Amendment And Sovereign Immunity

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. * * * The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "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." U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Supreme Court in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890), "extended the Eleventh Amendment's reach to suits by in-state plaintiffs, thereby barring all private suits against non-consenting States in federal court." Lombardo v. Pa., Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 540 F.3d 190, 194 (3d Cir. 2008) (emphasis omitted). Immunity from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment is designed to preserve the delicate and "proper balance between the supremacy of federal law and the separate sovereignty of the States." Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 757, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). The Eleventh Amendment serves two fundamental imperatives: safeguarding the dignity of the states and ensuring their financial solvency. See Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 52, 115 S.Ct. 394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994) (identifying "States' solvency and dignity" as the concerns underpinning the Eleventh Amendment). Karns v. Shanahan, 879 F. 3d 504 (3rd Cir. 2018)

As part of a new series of Greenwood's comprehensive reference guides to the United States Constitution, Professor Durchslag's edition on the Eleventh Amendment's guarantee of state sovereign immunity is the most thorough and up-to-date treatment of that amendment. The Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment over the past two centuries has been an attempt to balance the sovereign interests of the states against the primacy of federal law, and is currently its primary means of articulating its federalist doctrine. Beginning with an extensive history of the Eleventh Amendment and the ratification debates surrounding it, Durchslag proceeds to a chronological discussion of the development of the first generation of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence from 1793 - 1890. The book then proceeds topically, tracing the developments of the various doctrinal components of the Amendment, and includes suggestions as to how they may evolve. The work concludes with an erudite bibliographic essay to guide the reader to relevant primary and secondary works, and is fully indexed. For constitutional students, scholars, and legal practitioners, as well as for political scientists and historians studying the constitution or federalism.

The Eleventh Amendment is one of the most obscure and sharply debated parts of the United States Constitution. The interpretation of this seeminly simple clause has troubled the Supreme Court at crucial periods in American history, and continues to excite sharp debate in the Court today. John V. Orth reconstructs the fascinating but little-known past of the Eleventh Amendment and connects it to pressing modern issues to provide new insight into the history of judicial interpretation.

The Supreme Court's recent spate of state sovereign immunity rulings have protected states from lawsuits based on federal legislation as diverse as disabilities law, age discrimination, patent and trademark law, and labor standards. But does the doctrine of state sovereign immunity increase state authority? Does it undermine federal antidiscrimination statutes? Is it an effective means to revive a more robust version of federalism, shifting the balance of power toward states and away from the federal government, and if so, what are the costs and implications of such an approach? This book explores these questions through engaging historical case studies and traces the impact of state sovereign immunity on both plaintiffs and states. Demonstrating that the doctrine's primary effect is felt most keenly by the weakest and most politically unpopular individuals, Christopher Shortell's findings challenge arguments from both proponents and opponents of state sovereign immunity.