Also known as: 11th Amendment immunity · Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity · state sovereign immunity · 11th Amendment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection that shields nonconsenting states from private suits seeking retrospective monetary relief in federal court. The protection extends to suits by a state's own citizens and to arms of the state. Valid abrogation requires congressional action under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than Article I powers.
Elliot Edmonds, a state employee, sued his home state in its own courts for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state had not consented to the suit. The court dismissed the action because Congress lacked power under Article I to subject nonconsenting states to private damages actions in state court.
Eduardo Enriquez, a citizen of State A, filed a federal diversity action against State A seeking millions in unpaid licensing fees under a state contract. The state moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits by a state's own citizens against the state in federal court absent consent or abrogation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Edgewater Capital sued a state insurance commission in federal court for damages after the commission blocked approved plans under a federal statute resting solely on the commerce power. The commission moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because Article I powers do not authorize Congress to abrogate state immunity from private damages actions.
Emanuel Escobar, a resident of State B, sued the Franchise Tax Board of State A in federal court seeking a refund of taxes assessed under State A's law. State A asserted immunity. The court dismissed the action because the Eleventh Amendment precludes private damages suits against nonconsenting states in federal court.
Eric Espinoza sued state officials in federal court seeking an award of past-due welfare benefits that had accrued before the suit. The state asserted immunity from the monetary claim. The court denied the retroactive award because the Eleventh Amendment bars retrospective monetary relief payable from the state treasury absent consent or abrogation.
Edward Everett, a state employee, sued the state university in federal court for money damages under the ADA after an alleged failure to accommodate his disability. The university moved to dismiss on immunity grounds. The court granted the motion because Congress had not validly abrogated state immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes. The protection extends to suits by a state's own citizens seeking retrospective monetary relief in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation.
Supporting sources
No. Article I powers such as the commerce power do not authorize Congress to subject nonconsenting states to private damages actions in federal court. Valid abrogation requires action under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
Yes. When Congress acts under Article I, states retain immunity from private damages actions in their own courts absent consent.
Supporting sources
Prospective injunctive relief against state officers to halt ongoing violations of federal law may proceed under the Ex parte Young doctrine.
…or local authority. Cf., e. g. , Dellmuth v. Muth , 491 U. S. 223, 227-228 (1989) (requiring clear statement for abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity). Moreover, any clear statement rule would apply only to determine Congress' intended result, not to clarify the source of its authority or measure the level of consideration that went…