Also known as: princeps legibus solutus · sovereign immunity · rex non potest peccare
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A Latin maxim holding that the sovereign is not bound by the laws. The principle supplies the doctrinal foundation for sovereign immunity from private damages actions absent consent or valid congressional abrogation.
Paige Porter and other Maine probation officers sued the State of Maine in federal court for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Maine had not consented to the suit. The court dismissed the action because the maxim prevents Congress from forcing an unconsenting state into its own courts on an Article I claim.
Pulse Media, a Nevada company, sued the Revenue Department of neighboring State X in Nevada state court for damages caused by allegedly improper tax assessments. State X appeared only to assert immunity and had given no consent. The court dismissed the suit because the maxim bars one state from entertaining private damages claims against another state without consent.
Preston Pratt, a citizen of Franklin, sued the State of Franklin in federal district court for unpaid licensing fees under a contract with a state agency. Franklin had not consented. The court dismissed the action because the maxim extends the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits by a state's own citizens against the state for retrospective monetary relief.
Prime Logistics sued the Redland Insurance Commission in federal court for damages after the commission blocked approved insurance plans. Congress had attempted to abrogate state immunity under the commerce power alone. The court dismissed the suit because the maxim permits abrogation only under the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power, not under Article I.
Phoebe Park, a former White House aide, sued the former president for damages arising from an alleged retaliatory discharge. The president claimed absolute immunity for official acts. The court dismissed the damages claim because the maxim shields the sovereign from private suits that would interfere with the discharge of constitutional duties.
In January 1970 respondent A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force when his position was eliminated during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force. One year earlier, on November 13, 1968, Fitzgerald had testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee that cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane could approximate $2 billion. Concerned that the dismissal might constitute retaliation for the congressional testimony, the subcommittee held public hearings. At a December 8, 1969 news conference President Richard Nixon promised to look into the matter and directed White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman to arrange for Fitzgerald's reassignment to another administration position. An internal White House memorandum from aide Alexander Butterfield recommended that Fitzgerald "bleed, for a while at least" because of perceived disloyalty, and no further White House efforts to reemploy him occurred. Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission alleging unlawful retaliation. The Examiner held that Fitzgerald's dismissal had offended applicable civil service regulations based on a finding that the departmental reorganization was motivated by reasons purely personal to respondent. The Examiner recommended Fitzgerald's reappointment to his old position or to a job of comparable authority. The Commission explicitly found that the evidence did not support Fitzgerald's allegation of retaliation for his 1968 testimony. At a January 31, 1973 news conference President Nixon stated that he had approved Fitzgerald's dismissal. A day later the White House press office issued a retraction of the President's statement. In 1978 Fitzgerald filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia naming Nixon as a defendant and alleging violations of the First Amendment and two federal statutes. The District Court denied Nixon's motion for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the collateral appeal. Shortly after Nixon petitioned for certiorari the parties agreed that Nixon would pay Fitzgerald $142,000 immediately and an additional $28,000 if the Supreme Court ruled he was not entitled to absolute immunity.
View casePlatinum Partners filed an avoidance action in bankruptcy court against a state agency that had received a preferential transfer. The state agency asserted sovereign immunity. The court allowed the action to proceed because the maxim yields in core bankruptcy proceedings where the states agreed not to assert immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause.
Yes. The maxim embodies state sovereign immunity that Congress cannot override when legislating under Article I. Valid abrogation requires reliance on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
Yes. The maxim preserves each state's sovereign dignity so that one state's courts may not entertain private damages actions against another state without consent.
Supporting sources
Yes. The maxim confirms that sovereign immunity protects a state from private damages suits in federal court brought by its own citizens as well as by out-of-state plaintiffs, absent consent or valid abrogation.
Supporting sources
…§2000bb–1(b). The Act’s authorization of claims for money damages against the States is an attempt to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity. The question is whether Congress has the power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to do so. Congress’ power under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment extends only to “enforc[ing]” the…