Also known as: the king can do no wrong · rex non potest peccare · sovereign immunity · crown immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common-law principle that the sovereign cannot be sued without consent in its own courts. The doctrine evolved into the rule that governments and their officers enjoy immunity from private damages actions unless the sovereign has waived protection or Congress has validly abrogated it under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Khadija Khan, a state employee, sued her state employer in state court for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state had not consented to the suit. The court dismissed the action because the state retained sovereign immunity from private federal claims in its own courts.
Kiara Kaur obtained a judgment against State B in her home state and then filed an enforcement action in State A courts seeking damages from State B itself. State B had not consented to suit in State A. The court held that State A lacked power to entertain the action against the nonconsenting sister state.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Kai Kwon, a citizen of State C, sued State C in federal court for breach of a software licensing contract and sought money damages from the state treasury. The state had never consented to such suits. The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment.
Karina Kovacs sued the state in federal court under a federal manufacturing safety statute enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause that purported to abrogate state immunity. The state had not consented. The court dismissed the damages claim because Article I powers cannot remove Eleventh Amendment protection.
Kevin Kane, a former federal employee, sued the former President for damages arising from an allegedly unlawful discharge. The President had acted within the outer perimeter of official duties. The court held that absolute immunity attached to the office and barred the suit.
Kendra Kowalski, a former congressional staff member, sued a member of Congress for damages alleging sex discrimination in employment. The member asserted immunity for legislative acts. The court determined that the claim could proceed because the conduct fell outside the sphere of protected legislative activity.
The phrase traces to English common law and expressed the idea that the sovereign could not be sued in its own courts without consent. American courts adopted the principle as the foundation for state and federal sovereign immunity doctrines.
Yes. The principle underlies the Eleventh Amendment bar on private damages actions against nonconsenting states in federal court, as recognized in Hans v. Louisiana and later cases.
No. Article I powers such as the Commerce Clause or Indian Commerce Clause do not authorize Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court. Only Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment supplies that authority.
Yes. States retain sovereign immunity from private federal claims brought in their own courts when Congress acts under Article I, unless the state has consented.
Yes. A state retains sovereign immunity from private damages actions in the courts of a sister state, and the Constitution does not permit one state to hale another into its courts without consent.
…activities that the President might perform, places the President above the law. It is a reversion to the old notion that the King can do no wrong. Until now, this concept had survived in this country only in the form of sovereign immunity. That doctrine forecloses suit against the Government itself and against Government officials,…