Also known as: equal sovereignty · equal-sovereignty principle · equal footing doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional principle that all states possess equal sovereignty within the federal system. The principle prohibits Congress from imposing differential regulatory burdens on some states but not others without extraordinary justification tied to current conditions.
Ella Emerson, a Texas voter, sues to block a federal statute that requires only states with large technology hubs, identified solely by 1990s internet data, to obtain Attorney General preclearance before altering online voter-registration rules. Pacific Logic intervenes to defend the statute. The court holds that the selective burden on Texas lacks the required contemporary justification and therefore violates equal sovereignty.
Eugene Ellsworth, a Georgia voter, and several other plaintiffs sue state officials after congressional districts are drawn with widely varying populations. The suit contends that the resulting dilution of votes in more populous districts denies the equal sovereignty of all states to have their citizens' votes counted on the same basis.
In 1931 the Georgia legislature enacted a statute that divided the state into ten congressional districts. One of those districts, the Fifth, encompassed Fulton, DeKalb, and Rockdale Counties. The Fifth District had a 1960 census population of 823,680. The average population of the ten districts was 394,312, and the Ninth District contained only 272,154 people. These figures produced substantial disparities in which the Fifth District's Congressman represented from two to three times as many people as Congressmen from other districts. Appellants, citizens and qualified voters of Fulton County residing in the Fifth District, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Governor and Secretary of State of Georgia. They sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1931 statute was invalid and an injunction against conducting elections under it. The complaint alleged that the population disparities deprived them of rights under Article I, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge district court unanimously found that the Fifth District's population was grossly out of balance with the other nine districts. A majority nevertheless dismissed the complaint by relying on Colegrove v. Green and concluding that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question or warranted dismissal for want of equity. Judge Tuttle dissented from the dismissal, though he would have denied immediate injunctive relief to permit the Georgia legislature an opportunity to act. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and later reversed the dismissal.
View caseEchelon Security, a Nevada company, refuses to pay a California tax assessment. California sues in Nevada state court. Nevada invokes the equal sovereignty principle to argue that one state may not hale another sovereign state into its courts without the same comity and immunity rules that would apply in reverse.
In the early 1990s, Gilbert Hyatt earned substantial royalties from a technology patent. Although he had been a long-time resident of California, in 1991 Hyatt sold his house there and took steps to establish residency in Nevada, including renting an apartment, registering to vote, obtaining insurance, opening a bank account, and acquiring a driver's license. When filing his 1991 and 1992 tax returns, Hyatt claimed Nevada as his primary residence, a state that collects no personal income tax. The Franchise Tax Board of California suspected the move was a sham and in 1993 launched an audit. Board employees traveled to Nevada to interview Hyatt's estranged family members and shared his personal information with business contacts, sending more than 100 letters and demands for information to third parties. The Board concluded that Hyatt had not moved to Nevada until April 1992 and owed California more than $10 million in back taxes, interest, and penalties. After an 11-year administrative proceeding, the Board upheld the audit, with the appeal still pending. In 1998, Hyatt sued the Board in Nevada state court alleging torts committed during the audit. The Board sought dismissal on immunity grounds, arguing Nevada courts must apply California law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Nevada Supreme Court held that comity entitled the Board only to the immunity Nevada afforded its own agencies. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and in 2003 affirmed that the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not prohibit Nevada from applying its own law. After remand, a four-month jury trial resulted in a verdict exceeding $490 million including interest and costs. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a $1 million judgment on one claim but declined to apply Nevada's $50,000 cap on tort liability for state agencies. The Supreme Court in 2016 reversed, requiring the cap, but was equally divided on overruling Nevada v. Hall. On further remand, the trial court was instructed to apply the cap. The Board petitioned for certiorari a third time, and the Supreme Court granted review in 2018 solely on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled.
View caseCongress must supply extraordinary justification based on current conditions showing that the targeted states present a distinctive problem. Reliance on decades-old data is insufficient.
Supporting sources
The principle is rooted in the Tenth Amendment and the constitutional structure of equal state sovereignty. It has been invoked in contexts beyond voting, including interstate relations and federal regulatory schemes that single out particular states.
Supporting sources
A facial challenge is ripe as soon as the statute imposes the unequal preclearance obligation. Plaintiffs need not wait for an actual denial of preclearance.
Supporting sources
The enforcement power is broad but not unlimited. Any departure from equal sovereignty must be congruent and proportional to current constitutional violations. Outdated formulas fail that test.
Supporting sources