Also known as: foreign immunities · foreign sovereign immunity · sovereign immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional principle protecting states from private damages suits in federal courts and in the courts of other states, as well as in their own courts on federal claims, unless the state consents or Congress validly abrogates the immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Forrest Falconer and other probation officers sue the State of Maine in its own courts for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state has not consented to the action. The court dismisses the claims because Congress lacked authority under Article I to subject the state to private damages suits in state court.
Fernando Farrell, a resident of State A, sues the State of State B in State A courts for breach of a procurement contract seeking money damages. State B has not consented to the suit. The court dismisses the action because the Constitution does not permit one state’s courts to entertain private damages claims against another state.
Fatima Flores, a citizen of Louisiana, files a federal suit against the State of Louisiana seeking back pay under a federal wage statute. The state has not consented. The district court dismisses the action because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits by a state’s own citizens against the state in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation.
Freya Freeman sues the State of Oklahoma in federal court for damages under a federal statute enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. The state has not consented. The court dismisses the suit because Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity through Article I powers. Only Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment supplies a valid basis for abrogation.
Frederick Ferguson sues a former president in federal court for damages arising from an official decision. The court dismisses the action on grounds of absolute immunity for the president when performing particularly important functions, shielding the office from private suits that would interfere with constitutional duties.
In January 1970 respondent A. Ernest Fitzgerald lost his job as a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force when his position was eliminated during a departmental reorganization and reduction in force. One year earlier, on November 13, 1968, Fitzgerald had testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee that cost overruns on the C-5A transport plane could approximate $2 billion. Concerned that the dismissal might constitute retaliation for the congressional testimony, the subcommittee held public hearings. At a December 8, 1969 news conference President Richard Nixon promised to look into the matter and directed White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman to arrange for Fitzgerald's reassignment to another administration position. An internal White House memorandum from aide Alexander Butterfield recommended that Fitzgerald "bleed, for a while at least" because of perceived disloyalty, and no further White House efforts to reemploy him occurred. Fitzgerald complained to the Civil Service Commission alleging unlawful retaliation. The Examiner held that Fitzgerald's dismissal had offended applicable civil service regulations based on a finding that the departmental reorganization was motivated by reasons purely personal to respondent. The Examiner recommended Fitzgerald's reappointment to his old position or to a job of comparable authority. The Commission explicitly found that the evidence did not support Fitzgerald's allegation of retaliation for his 1968 testimony. At a January 31, 1973 news conference President Nixon stated that he had approved Fitzgerald's dismissal. A day later the White House press office issued a retraction of the President's statement. In 1978 Fitzgerald filed a second amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia naming Nixon as a defendant and alleging violations of the First Amendment and two federal statutes. The District Court denied Nixon's motion for summary judgment on absolute immunity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the collateral appeal. Shortly after Nixon petitioned for certiorari the parties agreed that Nixon would pay Fitzgerald $142,000 immediately and an additional $28,000 if the Supreme Court ruled he was not entitled to absolute immunity.
View caseFairfield Bank holds claims against a foreign government arising from expropriations. An executive agreement suspends the claims and channels them to an international tribunal. The bank’s federal suit is dismissed because the president’s authority to settle such claims overrides private litigation and implements the agreement without violating separation of powers.
In November 1979, the United States Embassy in Tehran was seized and American hostages were taken. President Carter declared a national emergency and issued Executive Order No. 12170 blocking the removal or transfer of all Iranian assets subject to United States jurisdiction. Petitioner Dames & Moore is an American engineering firm that had contracts with the Government of Iran and various Iranian agencies. In December 1979, Dames & Moore filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking damages for breach of contract. It obtained prejudgment attachments on property of Iranian banks. The Treasury Department issued regulations implementing the blocking order. These regulations initially permitted pre-judgment attachments. However, the regulations provided that licenses could be amended or revoked at any time. On January 19, 1981, the United States and Iran entered into the Algiers Accords. The Accords provided for the release of the hostages in exchange for the unfreezing of Iranian assets and the termination of litigation against Iran in United States courts. The Accords established an Iran-United States Claims Tribunal to arbitrate claims. President Carter then issued Executive Orders Nos. 12277 through 12285. These orders revoked licenses authorizing rights in blocked Iranian property. They nullified all attachments and judicial process against Iranian assets. They required banks holding Iranian assets to transfer them to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York. On February 24, 1981, President Reagan ratified those orders and issued Executive Order No. 12294 suspending all claims against Iran that could be presented to the Claims Tribunal. Dames & Moore subsequently filed suit in the District Court against the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the Executive Orders and regulations. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted but did not dismiss the action. On April 28, 1981, the District Court granted the petitioner's motion for summary judgment against the federal officials and ordered the funds subject to the attachments returned to the petitioner. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the summary judgment and dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. This Court granted certiorari.
View caseYes. Alden v. Maine holds that states retain sovereign immunity from private suits on federal claims in their own courts when Congress acts under Article I powers. The state must consent for such suits to proceed.
Supporting sources
No. The Constitution does not permit one state’s courts to hear private damages suits against another state absent consent. Sovereign immunity protects states from such cross-border litigation.
Supporting sources
Yes. Hans v. Louisiana confirms that the Eleventh Amendment extends to suits by a state’s own citizens against the state in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation, reinforcing state sovereign immunity from private damages actions.
Supporting sources
No. Seminole Tribe holds that Article I powers do not authorize Congress to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. Valid abrogation requires reliance on Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
…§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…