Also known as: foreign immunities · foreign sovereign immunity · sovereign immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
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.
Fairfield 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.
Yes. 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…