11th Amendment

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
This was never considered to be an issue until Chisholm v. Georgia. Alexander Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina and executor of the Robert Farquhar estate, filed suet against Georgia for payment of goods given to Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. Georgia did not go to the hearing claiming that as a state they had immunity. The court found in favor of the plaintiff saying that Article III Section 2 of the constitution stated they could be sued with the same rights as a normal person and did not have immunity according to the constitution.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
While the Supreme Court favored with the plaintiff they saw a problem that could later grow and two years later passed the 11th amendment on February 7, 1795. It simply stated that a state can not be sued by another state or country or any person that is not a citizen of that state.
In 1890 suet was filed that attempted to go around the states immunity. In the case Hans v. Louisiana, Hans was a citizen of Louisiana and thus the 11th amendment did not technically apply to the case. He was suing the states for state bonds he owned, that due to a new change to the state constitution would become invalid. Two problems arose because of this, first was that there was no statement in the constitution that said a citizen could not sue their own state, second was that the circuit courts said since it was all contained within their state the supreme court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court stated that it was within their power to take position of any hearing they saw necessary.
The Supreme Court after reviewing statements from the founders stated that the concept of a citizen suing their own state was something they never would have considered. During their time if a citizen tried to sue their own state the case would be ignored unless the state consented to going to court. The Supreme Court stated then that the eleventh amendment implied that a state can not be sued by on of its own citizen thus giving it seemingly complete immunity.
This was left for a while as a plain stated amendment however that was realized not to be true when compared to other amendments such as the bankruptcy clause of Article I or the later ratified 14th amendment.
In the case Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer the plaintiffs said that they had been subject to sex discrimination in their retirement policies and that this violated the 14th amendment that stated that there could be not discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. The state claimed they had immunity but the Supreme Court ruled that the eleventh amendment could be nullified if a case went against section 5 of the 14th amendment.
This seemed to open up more holes because it seemed to state the 11th amendment could be ignored if a case violated another amendment. Central Virginia Community College v. Katz in 1976 seemed to give example to this. The plaintiff owned a chain of book stores that were quickly going out of business, along with the fact that the owner himself had a number of high debts. He was forced to file bankruptcy but also decided to file suet saying that the bankruptcy clause of Article I allowed him to recover alleged preferential transfers in the form of rent he had given to the collages. The state claimed immunity and the supreme court ruled in their favor stating that Article I did not grant citizens power to sue states.
The 11th amendment is one that is not completely clear, while a number of cases try to use it as a loop hole the Supreme Court continues to make the allowed cases through the 11th amendment smaller. The Supreme Court must still view cases that claim to violate the 14th amendment to see if they have the right to sue their state. It is an amendment that is also slightly controversial because in its attempt to make order by giving states immunity they can not allow complete immunity because that would give the states to much power. Even though it seems like a simple statement it implies many more things that go along with it.