Also known as: The king can do no wrong · sovereign immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A Latin maxim providing that the sovereign cannot be sued without consent. It supplies the doctrinal foundation for state sovereign immunity from private damages actions in federal and state courts absent waiver or valid abrogation.
Rita Russell, a state probation officer, sued her employer State of Maine in federal district court for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court granted the motion because Congress enacted the statute under Article I and the state had not consented to suit.
Ricardo Rojas, a resident of State A, filed a damages action in State B courts against State A for injuries sustained on state property. State A moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because the Constitution does not authorize one state's courts to entertain private damages actions against another state without consent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ruby Rivera, a citizen of State C, sued State C in federal district court for breach of a state contract seeking money damages. 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 valid abrogation.
Ryan Roberts, a member of a federally recognized tribe, sued the State of Danton in federal court under a revenue-sharing compact enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. The state moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity through Article I powers.
Rachel Ramirez, a former White House aide, sued former President Richard Nixon for damages arising from an alleged wrongful discharge. Nixon moved to dismiss asserting absolute immunity. The court granted the motion because the President is entitled to absolute immunity for official acts performed within the outer perimeter of his duties.
Raphael Rivera, a property owner, sued the City of Boerne in federal court under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act seeking damages for a zoning decision that burdened his religious exercise. The city moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion because Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity through legislation resting solely on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when the statute exceeds Congress's enforcement power.
No. The maxim supplies the foundation for sovereign immunity but permits suit when a state consents or when Congress validly abrogates immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
No. Article I powers, including the commerce power and Indian commerce power, do not authorize Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal or state court.
Supporting sources
No. The maxim does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officers under the Ex parte Young doctrine when the officer is alleged to be violating federal law.
Supporting sources
Yes. The maxim prevents private damages actions against nonconsenting states in their own courts when Congress acts under Article I powers.
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…