Also known as: states' sovereignty · state sovereign · sovereignty
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The supreme authority exercised by each state to govern itself. This authority limits federal power to commandeer state officials, to impose unequal burdens on states without extraordinary justification, and to subject nonconsenting states to private damages suits in federal or state court.
Texas officials seek to update online voter registration rules without federal approval. The Department of Justice sues to enforce a statute that singles out Texas and a few other states using 1990s internet data. The court dismisses the enforcement action because the coverage formula lacks current justification tied to voting conditions.
Sarah Sullivan, a state hospital nurse, sues the State of Louisiana in state court for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Louisiana moves to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. The court grants the motion because Congress lacked authority under Article I to subject the state to private damages actions without consent.
Santiago Sanchez, an Indiana resident, files a federal damages action against the State of Indiana for workplace injuries under a commerce-based safety statute. Indiana moves to dismiss. The court grants the motion because the Eleventh Amendment bars suits by a state's own citizens absent consent or valid abrogation.
The Red River Tribe sues the State of Danton in federal court for unpaid compact revenues under a statute enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. Danton moves to dismiss asserting immunity. The court grants the motion because Article I powers cannot abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Samuel Soto is prosecuted in federal court for possessing a firearm near a local high school under a nationwide statute. He moves to dismiss arguing the activity is purely local. The court dismisses the indictment because the statute exceeds federal power and intrudes on traditional state authority over education.
In March 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a twelfth-grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, arrived at school carrying a concealed .38-caliber handgun and five bullets. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez, who admitted possessing the weapon. Local police arrested him and charged him under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The following day, state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. A federal grand jury indicted him on one count of knowing possession of a firearm at a school zone. Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress's power to legislate control over public schools. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the statute was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to regulate activities affecting commerce because the business of schools affects interstate commerce. After a bench trial, the court found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and two years of supervised release. Lopez appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute was beyond Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseMaryland imposes a tax on notes issued by the Second Bank of the United States operating within the state. The bank refuses payment and sues. The court invalidates the tax because it interferes with a federal instrumentality and undermines the state's retained sovereignty within the federal structure.
In April 1816, Congress passed an act entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States." The Bank organized in Philadelphia pursuant to the act and in 1817 established a branch in the City of Baltimore that from that time until May 1, 1818, transacted business by issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes, and performing other customary operations under the authority of the corporate body established at Philadelphia. On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act entitled "An act to impose a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature." The Maryland statute provided that any such branch could not lawfully issue notes except upon stamped paper of specified denominations furnished by the Treasurer of the Western Shore, or could relieve itself from that requirement by paying annually in advance to the Treasurer the sum of $15,000. Officers offending against the provisions forfeited $500 for each offense, and persons circulating unstamped notes forfeited up to $100, with penalties recoverable by indictment or action of debt. James W. McCulloch, cashier of the Baltimore branch, on the days set forth in the declaration issued bank notes to George Williams in Baltimore in part payment of a promissory note discounted by the branch, and those notes were not issued on stamped paper as prescribed by the Maryland act; neither the bank nor its branch had paid the $15,000 in advance before or since the issuance of those notes. John James, who sued as well for himself as for the State of Maryland, brought an action of debt against McCulloch in the County Court of Baltimore County to recover the penalties. The parties submitted a statement of agreed facts to the court, which rendered judgment against McCulloch; the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that judgment, and McCulloch brought the cause to the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error.
View caseNo. Valid abrogation requires reliance on the enforcement power of the Fourteenth Amendment. Statutes grounded solely in the Commerce Clause or Indian Commerce Clause cannot override Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court.
Yes. When Congress acts under Article I, it cannot subject nonconsenting states to private damages actions in their own courts. This rule preserves the state's immunity from federal claims absent consent.
When it singles out some states using outdated coverage formulas without extraordinary justification tied to current conditions. Reliance on decades-old data fails the test under the Tenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement power.
Yes. The federal government may not direct state officers to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs. Such commands violate the Tenth Amendment even when the underlying subject lies within federal power.
…premise was that the Constitution created a form of government under which "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The structure of the government dispersed power in reflection of the people's distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels. This form of government was "altogether…