Also known as: equal sovereignty principle · principle of equal sovereignty · equal sovereignty
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional principle holding that all states possess equal sovereignty within the federal system. Any federal statute that subjects some states but not others to special regulatory burdens must rest on extraordinary justification tied to current conditions rather than outdated data.
Congress enacts a statute requiring only states identified by 1990s internet adoption data to obtain federal preclearance before altering online voter registration rules. The State of Texas sues, arguing the coverage formula treats states unequally. The court invalidates the statute because the formula relies on decades-old information without current evidence of discrimination justifying the disparate treatment.
Congress passes a tax statute imposing special reporting requirements only on states with outdated 1980s economic data showing high unemployment. The State of Nevada challenges the law. The court strikes it down for lacking extraordinary justification based on current conditions, violating the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty.
In the early 1990s, Gilbert Hyatt earned substantial royalties from a technology patent. Although he had been a long-time resident of California, in 1991 Hyatt sold his house there and took steps to establish residency in Nevada, including renting an apartment, registering to vote, obtaining insurance, opening a bank account, and acquiring a driver's license. When filing his 1991 and 1992 tax returns, Hyatt claimed Nevada as his primary residence, a state that collects no personal income tax. The Franchise Tax Board of California suspected the move was a sham and in 1993 launched an audit. Board employees traveled to Nevada to interview Hyatt's estranged family members and shared his personal information with business contacts, sending more than 100 letters and demands for information to third parties. The Board concluded that Hyatt had not moved to Nevada until April 1992 and owed California more than $10 million in back taxes, interest, and penalties. After an 11-year administrative proceeding, the Board upheld the audit, with the appeal still pending. In 1998, Hyatt sued the Board in Nevada state court alleging torts committed during the audit. The Board sought dismissal on immunity grounds, arguing Nevada courts must apply California law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Nevada Supreme Court held that comity entitled the Board only to the immunity Nevada afforded its own agencies. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and in 2003 affirmed that the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not prohibit Nevada from applying its own law. After remand, a four-month jury trial resulted in a verdict exceeding $490 million including interest and costs. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a $1 million judgment on one claim but declined to apply Nevada's $50,000 cap on tort liability for state agencies. The Supreme Court in 2016 reversed, requiring the cap, but was equally divided on overruling Nevada v. Hall. On further remand, the trial court was instructed to apply the cap. The Board petitioned for certiorari a third time, and the Supreme Court granted review in 2018 solely on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled.
View caseA federal education statute requires only certain states identified by 1970s census figures to comply with additional oversight. Several affected states sue the Department of Education. The court holds the statute invalid because it fails to tie the differential treatment to present-day evidence as required by equal sovereignty.
In 1931 the Georgia legislature enacted a statute that divided the state into ten congressional districts. One of those districts, the Fifth, encompassed Fulton, DeKalb, and Rockdale Counties. The Fifth District had a 1960 census population of 823,680. The average population of the ten districts was 394,312, and the Ninth District contained only 272,154 people. These figures produced substantial disparities in which the Fifth District's Congressman represented from two to three times as many people as Congressmen from other districts. Appellants, citizens and qualified voters of Fulton County residing in the Fifth District, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Governor and Secretary of State of Georgia. They sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1931 statute was invalid and an injunction against conducting elections under it. The complaint alleged that the population disparities deprived them of rights under Article I, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge district court unanimously found that the Fifth District's population was grossly out of balance with the other nine districts. A majority nevertheless dismissed the complaint by relying on Colegrove v. Green and concluding that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question or warranted dismissal for want of equity. Judge Tuttle dissented from the dismissal, though he would have denied immediate injunctive relief to permit the Georgia legislature an opportunity to act. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and later reversed the dismissal.
View caseCongress must supply extraordinary justification tied to current conditions. Reliance on decades-old data fails this test and violates the principle of equal sovereignty among the states.
Supporting sources
No. Distinctions can be justified when a statute's disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently related to the problem it targets and rests on current evidence rather than stale historical data.
Supporting sources
An outdated formula imposes unequal federal oversight on selected states without demonstrating that current conditions in those states warrant special treatment. This departs from the baseline that all states enjoy equal sovereignty.
Supporting sources
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states powers not delegated to the federal government. When Congress singles out particular states for differential treatment in core sovereign functions such as regulating elections, it must justify the departure from equal sovereignty with current, extraordinary justification.
Supporting sources