Also known as: sovereign immunities · state immunity · governmental immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine that protects nonconsenting states from private suits seeking damages in federal court and in their own courts on federal claims when Congress acts under Article I powers. The doctrine extends to suits in other states' courts and to certain federal administrative proceedings. Valid abrogation requires reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power rather than Article I authority.
Sophia Singh, a state employee, sued her 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 the federal statute rested on Article I authority and could not override the state's immunity from private damages actions in its own courts.
Seth Shapiro, a resident of State A, filed a tort damages action in State A courts against State B for injuries caused by a State B official. State B had not consented. The court dismissed the suit because the Constitution does not permit 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.
Sofia Stern, a citizen of State C, brought a contract damages action against State C in federal district court. The state had not consented and no abrogation applied. The court dismissed the case because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits by a state's own citizens against that state in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation.
Selena Singh sued a state agency in federal court under a federal statute enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. The statute purported to authorize private damages actions against states. The court dismissed the claim because Article I powers do not permit Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court.
Samuel Soto filed an administrative complaint against a state agency before a federal adjudicative body seeking damages under a federal statute. The state had not consented. The agency dismissed the proceeding because sovereign immunity bars sufficiently court-like federal administrative proceedings against nonconsenting states.
Scott Summers challenged a state land-use ordinance as violating religious exercise rights and sought damages against the state under a federal statute. The statute relied on Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court examined whether the statute was a congruent and proportional response to constitutional violations before allowing the damages claim to proceed.
Yes. State sovereign immunity prevents private damages actions against nonconsenting states in their own courts when Congress acts under Article I powers, as with Fair Labor Standards Act claims.
No. States retain sovereign immunity from private suits in the courts of other states, and the Constitution does not permit one state's courts to entertain a private damages action against another state without its consent.
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment's jurisdictional bar extends to suits brought by a state's own citizens against that state in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation.
No. Congress's Article I powers, such as the Indian Commerce Clause, do not authorize Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court. Valid abrogation must rest on the Fourteenth Amendment's enforcement power.
…§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…