440 U.S. 410 (1979)
In May 1968, California residents suffered severe injuries in an automobile collision on a California highway.1 The driver of the other vehicle, an employee of the University of Nevada, was killed in the collision while operating a state-owned car on official business; the University is an instrumentality of the State of Nevada.2
The injured California residents filed suit for damages in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco, naming the administrator of the driver's estate, the University, and the State of Nevada as defendants.3 Process was served on the State and the University pursuant to provisions of the California Vehicle Code authorizing service on nonresident motorists.4
The trial court granted Nevada's motion to quash service, but the California Supreme Court reversed, holding as a matter of California law that Nevada was amenable to suit in California courts, and remanded the case for trial; the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari.5
On remand, Nevada filed a pretrial motion to limit any damages award to $25,000 under a Nevada statute capping tort recoveries against the State.6 Nevada's motion was denied, and the case went to trial.7 The jury concluded that the Nevada driver was negligent and awarded damages of $1,150,000.8
The Superior Court entered judgment on the verdict and the Court of Appeal affirmed.9 After the California Supreme Court denied review, the State of Nevada and its University successfully sought a writ of certiorari.10
Whether federal law prohibits California courts from asserting jurisdiction over the State of Nevada or entering a judgment against it?11
No. California residents suffered severe injuries in an automobile collision on a California highway when a Nevada state employee operating a state-owned car on official business caused the crash.14 The injured residents filed suit in California Superior Court and served process under the California Vehicle Code provisions for nonresident motorists.15 The California courts applied their own law to hold Nevada amenable to suit and entered judgment after trial.16 These actions rest on California's sovereign authority over events within its borders and do not contravene any federal constitutional limit.17
Federal law does not prohibit California courts from asserting jurisdiction over Nevada or entering the judgment against it.18
Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires California to enforce Nevada's statutory $25,000 limit on tort damages against the State?19
The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require one State to apply another State's law when doing so would violate the forum State's own legitimate public policy.20
No. After the California Supreme Court remanded the case for trial, Nevada moved to cap damages at $25,000 under its own statute.21 The motion was denied.22 The jury concluded that the Nevada driver was negligent and awarded damages of $1,150,000. The California courts entered judgment on the verdict.23
California maintains a statutory policy of full compensation for persons injured on its highways by negligent drivers, including nonresidents, and has waived its own immunity to allow such recovery.24 Enforcing Nevada's cap would directly conflict with that policy.25
The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require California to enforce Nevada's $25,000 damages limit.26
Whether the structure of the Constitution implicitly requires one State to grant sovereign immunity from suit to another State in its own courts?27
The structure of the Constitution does not embody any implicit federal rule requiring interstate sovereign immunity.28 Such immunity remains a matter of comity that each State may accept or reject according to its own policies, consistent with the Tenth Amendment reservation of undelegated powers to the States.29
No. The established facts show that California exercised jurisdiction over Nevada under its Vehicle Code, denied the motion to limit damages, and entered a full judgment after trial.30 California has declared its policy of providing complete redress for highway injuries occurring within the State.31 The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States powers not delegated to the federal government, and nothing in the constitutional plan converts comity into a mandatory federal obligation that would override California's choice.32
The structure of the Constitution does not implicitly require one State to grant sovereign immunity from suit to another State in its own courts.33
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice And Justice Rehnquist
Justice Blackmun dissented on the ground that sovereign immunity among the States possesses an implicit constitutional dimension as a fundamental component of federalism.34 He observed that at the time of the Constitutional Convention there was widespread acceptance of the view that a sovereign State is never amenable to suit without its consent.35 The swift adoption of the Eleventh Amendment after Chisholm v. Georgia confirms this understanding and shows the Framers' intent to protect state sovereignty.36
Although the Amendment directly addresses federal courts, the underlying postulate that States should not be haled before the courts of a sister State without consent is equally fundamental.37 He concluded that the facts of this case sufficiently implicate the implicit right of sovereign immunity and that the judgment should therefore be reversed.38
Joined by The Chief Justice
Justice Rehnquist, joined by the Chief Justice, dissented on the ground that the majority's holding works a fundamental readjustment of interstate relationships incompatible with the constitutional plan.39 He relied on the historical understanding of the Framers and the logic of the Eleventh Amendment.40 Prior decisions such as Hans v. Louisiana recognize implicit structural limits on state power derived from the overall constitutional scheme.41
He argued that permitting suits against unconsenting States in other States' courts undermines the careful allocation of judicial responsibility among state and federal courts and transforms a constitutional right into an albatross.42