Also known as: king can do no wrong · rex non potest peccare · sovereign immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle of sovereign immunity providing that the government cannot be sued for damages without its consent. The maxim embodies the structural rule that private parties may not hale a sovereign into court for retrospective monetary relief absent waiver or valid abrogation.
A group of probation officers employed by the State of Maine filed suit in state court alleging violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeking back wages. Maine had not consented to the action. The court dismissed the claims because the state retained sovereign immunity from private damages suits on federal claims in its own courts.
SilverStack, a Nevada corporation, sued the Revenue Department of State X in Nevada state court for damages arising from allegedly improper tax assessments. State X had not consented to suit in Nevada. The court dismissed the action because one state may not entertain private damages claims against another state without consent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Lena, a citizen of Franklin, sued the State of Franklin's Technology Agency in federal court for unpaid licensing fees under a contract. Franklin had not consented to the federal suit. The court dismissed the case because the Eleventh Amendment bars private damages actions by a state's own citizens against the state absent consent or abrogation.
Meridian Health sued the Redland Insurance Commission in federal court under a commerce-power statute that purported to authorize damages against state insurance authorities. Redland had not consented. The court dismissed the suit because Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity through Article I legislation.
A former White House aide sued the President for damages arising from an alleged retaliatory discharge. The President moved to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds. The court granted the motion because the office of the President enjoys immunity from damages suits for official acts.
Paula Jones sued President Clinton for damages based on pre-presidency conduct. Clinton sought to defer the suit until after his term. The court denied the request for deferral because the immunity of the President does not extend to suits based on unofficial acts.
No. The maxim supports sovereign immunity that bars most private damages suits against states in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officers may proceed under Ex parte Young.
No. Article I powers such as the commerce power do not authorize Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court. Valid abrogation requires reliance on the enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes. The constitutional structure preserves each state's sovereign immunity from private damages actions in the courts of other states absent consent.
The maxim historically supported absolute immunity for the President for official acts, though suits based on unofficial conduct may proceed during the term of office.
…§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…