134 U.S. 1 (1890)
Hans, a citizen of Louisiana, filed suit against the State of Louisiana in the United States Circuit Court.1 He alleged that a constitutional amendment recently adopted by Louisiana impaired the obligation of contracts in violation of the federal Constitution.2 The action was brought on the theory that it presented a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.3
This litigation formed part of a series of cases challenging the same Louisiana constitutional amendment.4 Earlier suits had been commenced by citizens of other states against Louisiana and its officers.5 Those cases had already reached the Supreme Court, which held them barred by the Eleventh Amendment.6
The Circuit Court entered judgment against Hans.7 He then prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.8 The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether federal jurisdiction extended to such a suit by a state's own citizen on a federal-question claim.9
Whether a State can be sued in a Circuit Court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon a suggestion that the case is one that arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States?10
The judicial power of the United States does not extend to suits against a State by one of its own citizens, even if the case arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States, because the Eleventh Amendment and principles of sovereign immunity prohibit such suits without the State's consent.11
No. The facts establish that Hans, a citizen of Louisiana, brought an action against the State of Louisiana in the Circuit Court of the United States on a claim that the case arose under the Constitution or laws of the United States.12 The rule prohibits such suits because the Eleventh Amendment and the principles of sovereign immunity, as interpreted in light of history and the amendment's adoption to overrule Chisholm v. Georgia, bar federal jurisdiction over suits by individuals against states without consent.13 The Circuit Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action brought by Hans.14
A State cannot be sued in a Circuit Court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon a federal question claim without its consent.15
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harlan concurred in the judgment.16 He did so on the ground that a suit directly against a State by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends unless the State itself consents to be sued.17 He limited his assent to this ground alone.18
Harlan declined to join the majority's comments upon the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia.19 He viewed that earlier decision as based upon a sound interpretation of the Constitution as the instrument then existed.20