Also known as: sovereign immunity rules · sovereign immunity · sovereign immunity doctrine · governmental immunity · crown immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine that bars private suits for damages against nonconsenting states in federal court or in the states' own courts on federal claims when Congress acts under Article I powers. Valid abrogation requires reliance on Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. The doctrine also prevents one state's courts from entertaining damages actions against another state without consent.
Sierra Santos and other probation officers sued the State of Maine in Maine state court for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state moved to dismiss the damages claims. The court granted the motion because Congress had enacted the relevant provisions under Article I and the state had not consented to suit.
Steven Silva, a resident of State A, filed suit in State B courts seeking damages from State B for alleged breach of a licensing agreement. State B moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court dismissed the action because the Constitution does not authorize one state's courts to entertain private damages claims against another state without consent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sofia Stern, a citizen of Louisiana, filed a federal class action against the State of Louisiana seeking back pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state moved to dismiss the damages claims. The district court dismissed the suit because the Eleventh Amendment bars a state's own citizens from pursuing retrospective monetary relief against the state in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation.
The Red River Tribe sued the State of Danton in federal court for unpaid amounts under a revenue-sharing compact authorized by a federal statute enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. Danton moved to dismiss asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court granted the motion because Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity through legislation resting on Article I powers.
Maria Lopez, a state hospital employee, sued the State of Oregon in federal court seeking damages for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The state moved to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court granted the motion because Congress lacked power under Article I to abrogate the state's immunity from private damages suits.
James Rivera sued a state environmental agency in federal court seeking damages for an alleged regulatory taking. The agency moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity. The court dismissed the action because no valid abrogation existed and the Eleventh Amendment barred the private damages claim against the nonconsenting state.
No. Article I powers such as the Commerce Clause or Indian Commerce Clause do not authorize Congress to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. Valid abrogation requires reliance on Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supporting sources
Yes. State sovereign immunity prevents private suits on federal claims in state court when Congress acts under Article I powers and the state has not consented.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment's jurisdictional bar extends to suits by a state's own citizens against the state in federal court absent consent or valid abrogation.
Supporting sources
No. The Constitution does not permit one state's courts to hear private damages claims against another state absent consent.
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…