527 U.S. 706 (1999)
In 1992, petitioners, a group of probation officers, filed suit against their employer, the State of Maine, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine.1 The officers alleged the State had violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and sought compensation and liquidated damages.2 While the suit was pending, the Supreme Court decided Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida in 1996.3 Upon consideration of that decision, the District Court dismissed petitioners' action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.4
Petitioners then filed the same action in state court.5 The state trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of sovereign immunity, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in 1998.6 The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision conflicted with the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in Jacoby v. Arkansas Department of Education.7 In light of the importance of the question presented and the conflict between the courts, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1998.8
The United States intervened as a petitioner to defend the statute.9 Petitioners are a group of probation officers who alleged violations of federal overtime requirements by their state employer.10 The procedural path moved from federal district court through dismissal after Seminole Tribe, to refiling in Maine state court, dismissal there, affirmance by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and finally review by the United States Supreme Court.11
Whether the powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution include the power to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in state courts?12
The powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution do not include the power to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in state courts.13 The sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment.14 It is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution.15 The States retain this sovereignty today except as altered by the plan of the Convention or the Fourteenth Amendment.16
No. The constitutional structure and history demonstrate that the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty retained by the States except as altered by the plan of the Convention or constitutional Amendments.17 In this case the petitioners, a group of probation officers, filed suit against their employer the State of Maine in the United States District Court for the District of Maine alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and seeking compensation and liquidated damages. While the suit was pending, the Supreme Court decided Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida. That decision made clear that Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity from suits in federal courts. This led to dismissal of the federal action. Petitioners then filed the same action in Maine state court. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
The Framers did not intend to give Congress the power under Article I to subject the States to suit in their own courts.18 This would be inconsistent with the constitutional design preserving state sovereignty.19 The principle that the States are immune from suit in their own courts is at least as strong as the principle that they are immune from suit in federal court.20
The powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution do not include the power to subject nonconsenting States to private suits for damages in state courts. The judgment of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court is affirmed.21
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj.
Justice Souter dissented.22 He argued that the majority's decision is unsupported by the text or history of the Constitution.23 The Eleventh Amendment does not speak to suits in state court.24 The history of the ratification demonstrates that the States surrendered their immunity from suit when they ratified the Constitution.25 The plan of the Convention was to create a National Government with the power to enforce its laws against the States.26 The majority's reliance on an implied constitutional principle of sovereign immunity is misplaced.27
The decision represents a departure from established precedent. It undermines the supremacy of federal law. The Constitution vests Congress with the power to regulate commerce among the States. That power includes the authority to subject the States to suit to enforce federal law. The judgment should be reversed.28