Week 3 - State Sovereignty and Fundamental Principles

First Major constitutional controversy to be decided by Supreme Court

constitutional limits on state power, whether the Constitution permitted a state to be sued by a citizen of another state in federal court

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), whether a citizen of one state can sue another state in federal court

Justice Iredell (dissent – sided with Georgia)

• Federal courts only have the powers and procedures that Congress has clearly given them.

• Congress has not passed any law that clearly lets a private person force a state to pay money in court.

• In older law (especially English law), you could not sue the king like a normal person, and there is no clear rule replacing that for American states.

• States are still sovereign in all areas they did not hand over to the federal government.

• If a state refuses to pay a debt, the only real remedy is to ask its legislature; courts cannot create a new way to force it to pay.

• Because there is no clear law authorizing this kind of lawsuit, the case should be thrown out.

Justice Blair (with the majority – sided with Chisholm)

• The Constitution says federal courts can hear disputes “between a State and citizens of another State.”

• This case is exactly that: Georgia vs. a citizen of South Carolina (through the estate).

• If the Court refuses to hear the case just because a state is the defendant, it is refusing to do part of the job the Constitution gives it.

• The fact that Congress has not spelled out how to enforce a judgment against a state does not erase the Court’s power to hear the case.

Justice Wilson (with the majority – sided with Chisholm)

• The real sovereign in the United States is the people, not the states or their governments.

• States are “artificial persons” created by people; they can own property, make contracts, and owe debts—just like a business.

• If a state breaks a contract, it should be treated like a dishonest merchant: it can be brought into court and made to pay.

• Old feudal ideas that a “sovereign” (like a king) cannot be sued do not fit a republic where the people are in charge.

• When the people adopted the Constitution, they gave federal courts power over cases exactly like this, so Georgia can be sued.

Justice Cushing (with the majority – sided with Chisholm)

• The Constitution plainly says federal courts handle disputes “between a State and citizens of another State,” with no exception for when the state is the one being sued.

• The same section also allows suits between states, and between states and foreign countries or citizens, which clearly can put a state in the position of defendant.

• If a state can sue a citizen in federal court, fairness requires that a citizen also be able to sue a state there.

• States gave up some of their independence when the people adopted the Constitution; if that is a problem, the solution is to amend the Constitution, not to ignore its words.

Chief Justice Jay (with the majority – sided with Chisholm)

• Before independence, Americans were subjects of the British king; after the Revolution, the people became the sovereigns.

• The people used that power to create both state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution, and they meant the national Constitution to be binding on the states.

• In a free country, all citizens are equal; one citizen can sue another, and one person can even sue a whole corporation (many people together), so there is no good reason a person cannot sue a state (also many people together).

• The Constitution’s words about “controversies between a State and citizens of another State” naturally include cases where the state is the defendant.

• It would be unfair to let a state sue citizens of other states in federal court but deny those citizens the same right to sue the state.

What is Justice Iredell's primary dissent argument on federal court powers against states?

Federal courts only have powers Congress clearly gives; no law allows private suits against states for money.

How does Iredell view remedies for a state refusing to pay a debt?

States sovereign except powers given to federal gov't; remedy for non-payment = legislature, not court.

What constitutional text does Justice Blair cite to support hearing the case?

Constitution says courts hear "State vs. citizen of another State"—this case fits exactly.

According to Blair, does lack of congressional enforcement details affect jurisdiction?

Doesn't erase court's power to hear the case; must exercise constitutional jurisdiction.

What is Justice Wilson's view of true U.S. sovereignty and states' nature?

People are true sovereigns; states are "artificial persons" that can contract/owe debts like merchants.

Why does Wilson reject sovereign immunity for states in court?

States suable like dishonest businesses; rejects king immunity in republican U.S.

What plain text argument does Justice Cushing make for jurisdiction?

Constitution lists "State vs. citizen" with no defendant exception; symmetry with state suits.

Per Cushing, what is the fix if states dislike being sued?

States yielded some via Constitution; amend if unhappy, don't ignore plain words.

How does Chief Justice Jay describe the shift in sovereignty post-Revolution?

Pre-Revolution: British king sovereign. Post: American people sovereign, creating constitutions.

What equality principle does Jay use to allow suing states?

Citizens equal; sue individuals/corps, so sue states (collective persons) too.

How does Jay interpret "controversies between a State and citizens of another State"?

Includes state as defendant; fairness requires mutuality.

What did the 11th amendment do to the ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia?

Overturned it, bars lawsuits against states by citizens of other states or foreign countries, restoring state sovereign immunity

What did Calder v. Bull entail about the power state legislatures have?

Facts:

Connecticut passed new law letting a new court review and reverse a state probate decision that denied an old man's will. P said the law violated the U.S. Constitution's Ex Post Facto and Bill of Attainder clauses by acting retroactively and unfairly.

Rule of Law:
State legislatures have broad powers limited only by express constitutional text; judges presume validity unless a clear violation, not vague "fundamental rights" overriding statutes. (But Chase's view hints at implicit limits via presumed consent.)