A constitutional amendment ratified in 1795 that limits the judicial power of the United States by barring federal courts from hearing suits against a state brought by citizens of another state or by foreign citizens. The bar extends to suits by a state's own citizens seeking retrospective monetary relief payable from the state treasury. Suits against state officers for prospective injunctive relief to end ongoing violations of federal law remain available, and Congress may abrogate the immunity only when acting pursuant to its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Our Sources· 7 primary sources
Cases
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Retroactive Back Pay Claim Barred
Emma Erickson, a nurse employed by a state-run hospital, sues the state health department in federal court for years of unpaid overtime wages after the department misclassified her as an independent contractor. She seeks a lump-sum award of back pay and compensatory damages drawn directly from the state treasury. The court dismisses the action because the requested relief would require payment for past violations rather than ordering future compliance with federal law.
Injunction Against Ongoing Program
Elena Estrada, acting through a privacy advocacy group, sues the state chief information officer in her official capacity in federal court. The complaint alleges that a new cybersecurity program continuously scans and stores residents' internet traffic in violation of federal constitutional rights and requests an order halting further collection and requiring deletion of existing logs. The court denies the motion to dismiss because the requested relief targets future conduct by the officer.
In-State Citizen Damages Suit Dismissed
Emily Ellis, a citizen of State A, files a federal action against the State A Technology Agency seeking five million dollars in compensatory damages for breach of a software licensing contract. The agency moves to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff is a citizen of the defendant state. The court grants the motion because the Eleventh Amendment removes jurisdiction over such private damages actions absent consent or valid abrogation.
Commerce-Clause Abrogation Attempt Fails
Elise Everly, a member of the Red River Tribe, sues the neighboring state in federal court for unpaid revenue-sharing amounts under a tribal-state compact authorized by a federal statute enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. The state moves to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity. The court grants the motion because Congress may not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity through legislation resting solely on Article I powers.
State-Court FLSA Damages Action Barred
Eugene Ellsworth, a probation officer employed by the State of Maine, files a damages action in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking unpaid overtime compensation. The state moves to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court dismisses the suit because Congress cannot subject nonconsenting states to private damages actions in their own courts when acting under Article I authority.
Alden v. Maine527 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. The officers alleged the State had violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and sought compensation and liquidated damages. While the suit was pending, the Supreme Court decided Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida in 1996. Upon consideration of that decision, the District Court dismissed petitioners' action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Petitioners then filed the same action in state court. The state trial court dismissed the suit on the basis of sovereign immunity, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in 1998. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision conflicted with the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in Jacoby v. Arkansas Department of Education. In light of the importance of the question presented and the conflict between the courts, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1998.
The United States intervened as a petitioner to defend the statute. Petitioners are a group of probation officers who alleged violations of federal overtime requirements by their state employer. 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.
Federal Officer Suit Unaffected
Emmett Egan sues six individual federal narcotics agents in their personal capacities in federal court for damages arising from an alleged unconstitutional search and seizure. The agents move to dismiss asserting state sovereign immunity principles. The court denies the motion because the suit targets federal officers rather than a state or its treasury and therefore falls outside the Eleventh Amendment bar.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971)
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx.
The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search.
Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct.
The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
4 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a state's own citizen from suing the state in federal court for money damages?
Yes. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Amendment to extend its jurisdictional bar to suits brought by a state's own citizens against that state in federal court for retrospective monetary relief, absent consent or valid abrogation.
Can Congress abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity through legislation enacted under its Article I commerce powers?
No. Valid abrogation requires Congress to act pursuant to its enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Legislation resting solely on Article I powers, such as the Indian Commerce Clause, cannot remove state sovereign immunity from federal court suits.
When may a federal court entertain a suit against a state officer for injunctive relief?
A federal court may hear such a suit when the officer is sued in an official capacity and the relief sought is prospective, aimed at ending an ongoing violation of federal law. The officer is treated as stripped of state authority in that circumstance, allowing the action to proceed notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.
Does the Eleventh Amendment bar suits seeking only prospective relief that may incidentally require future state expenditures?
No. Federal courts may order state officials to comply prospectively with federal law even when compliance will require future expenditures from the state treasury. The bar applies only to retroactive monetary awards for past violations.
barred suit in a federal court for an injunction compelling a state officer to perform a contract to which the State was a party. Having concluded that the suit was inescapably a suit…
. The ADA prohibits certain employers, including the States, from "discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard…
Constitutional LawThe nature of judicial review · JurisdictionUBEIntermediate