atascadero state hospital scanlon argued march decided june respondent suffers diabetes sight one eye brought action federal district petitioners alleging petitioner california state hospital denied employment physical handicap violation rehabilitation act seeking compensatory injunctive declaratory relief section provides handicapped person shall solely reason handicap subjected discrimination program receiving federal financial assistance act section makes available person aggrieved act recipient federal assistance act remedies employment discrimination set forth title vi civil rights act district granted petitioners motion dismiss complaint ground respondent claims barred eleventh amendment ultimately initially affirming grounds upon remand appeals reversed holding eleventh amendment bar action state receiving funds act implicitly consented sued recipient held respondent action proscribed eleventh amendment pp article iii california constitution provides uits may brought state manner courts shall directed law constitute waiver state eleventh amendment immunity suit federal order state statute constitutional provision constitute waiver must specify state intent subject suit federal article iii specifically indicate state willingness sued federal appears simply authorize legislature waive state sovereign immunity rehabilitation act abrogate eleventh amendment bar suits congress must express intention abrogate eleventh amendment unmistakable language statute general authorization suit federal kind unequivocal statutory language sufficient abrogate eleventh amendment pp state acceptance funds participation programs funded rehabilitation act insufficient establish consented suit federal act falls far short manifesting clear intention condition participation programs act state consent waive constitutional immunity pp powell delivered opinion burger white rehnquist joined brennan filed dissenting opinion marshall blackmun stevens joined post blackmun filed dissenting opinion brennan marshall stevens joined post stevens filed dissenting opinion post james ryan deputy attorney general california argued cause petitioners briefs john van de kamp attorney general thomas warriner assistant attorney general anne pressman supervising deputy attorney general overton deputy attorney general marilyn holle argued cause respondent brief joseph lawrence levonne chambers eric schnapper stanley fleishman solicitor general lee assistant attorney general reynolds deputy assistant attorney general cooper charles fried christopher wright walter barnett filed brief amicus curiae urging reversal briefs amici curiae urging affirmance filed american civil liberties union foundation et al david shapiro burt neuborne charles sims paul hoffman mark rosenbaum senator cranston et al bonnie milstein disability employment advocacy project employment law center joan graff robert barnes justice powell delivered opinion case presents question whether state agencies subject suit federal litigants seeking retroactive monetary relief rehabilitation act whether suits proscribed eleventh amendment respondent douglas james scanlon suffers diabetes mellitus sight one eye november filed action petitioners atascadero state hospital california department mental health district central district california alleging hospital denied employment graduate student assistant recreational therapist solely physical handicaps respondent charged hospital discriminatory refusal hire violated rehabilitation act stat amended certain state fair employment laws respondent sought compensatory injunctive declaratory relief petitioners moved dismissal complaint ground eleventh amendment barred federal entertaining respondent claims alternatively petitioners argued suit employment discrimination rehabilitation act plaintiff must allege primary objective federal assistance received defendants provide employment respondent case dismissed allege january district granted petitioners motion dismiss complaint ground respondent claims barred eleventh amendment appeal appeals ninth circuit affirmed scanlon atascadero state hospital reach question whether eleventh amendment proscribed respondent suit rather affirmed district ground respondent failed allege essential element claim namely primary objective federal funds received defendants provide employment respondent sought review granted certiorari vacated judgment appeals remanded case consideration light consolidated rail corporation darrone held bar employment discrimination limited programs receive federal aid primary purpose providing employment remand appeals reversed judgment district held eleventh amendment bar respondent action state participated received funds programs rehabilitation act implicitly consented sued recipient although noting rehabilitation act expressly abrogate eleventh amendment immunity reasoned state consent suit federal inferred participation programs funded act based view fact act provided remedies procedures rights recipient federal assistance implementing regulations expressly defined class recipients include quoting decision edelman jordan determined threshold fact congressional authorization sue class defendants literally includes present case decision case conflict courts appeals first eighth circuits see ciampa massachusetts rehabilitation miener missouri cert denied granted certiorari resolve conflict reverse ii eleventh amendment provides judicial power shall construed extend suit law equity commenced prosecuted one citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state recognized significance amendment lies affirmation fundamental principle sovereign immunity limits grant judicial authority art iii constitution pennhurst state school hospital halderman pennhurst ii thus hans louisiana held amendment barred citizen bringing suit state federal even though express terms amendment provide however certain exceptions reach eleventh amendment example state waives immunity consents suit federal eleventh amendment bar action see clark barnard moreover eleventh amendment necessarily limited enforcement provisions fourteenth amendment congress power enforce appropriate legislation substantive provisions fourteenth amendment fitzpatrick bitzer result acting pursuant fourteenth amendment congress abrogate eleventh amendment without consent ibid eleventh amendment implicates fundamental constitutional balance federal government consistently held exceptions apply certain specific conditions met thus held state deemed waived immunity stated express language overwhelming implication text leave room reasonable construction edelman jordan quoting murray wilson distilling likewise determining whether congress exercising fourteenth amendment powers abrogated eleventh amendment immunity required unequivocal expression congressional intent overturn constitutionally guaranteed immunity several pennhurst ii quoting quern jordan accord employees missouri dept public health welfare case asked decide whether state california subject suit federal alleged violations rehabilitation act respondent makes three arguments support view eleventh amendment bar suit first state waived immunity virtue art iii california constitution second enacting rehabilitation act congress abrogated constitutional immunity third accepting federal funds rehabilitation act state consented suit federal prior decisions none claims merit iii respondent argues state california waived immunity suit federal thus eleventh amendment bar suit see clark barnard respondent relies art iii california constitution provides suits may brought state manner courts shall directed law respondent view unless california legislature affirmatively imposes sovereign immunity state potentially subject suit federal well state test determining whether state waived immunity jurisdiction stringent one although state general waiver sovereign immunity may subject suit state enough waive immunity guaranteed eleventh amendment florida dept health florida nursing home per curiam explained last term state constitutional interest immunity encompasses merely whether may sued may sued pennhurst ii supra thus order state statute constitutional provision constitute waiver eleventh amendment immunity must specify state intention subject suit federal see smith reeves great northern life insurance read view principles believe art iii california constitution constitutes waiver state constitutional immunity provision specifically indicate state willingness sued federal indeed provision appears simply authorize legislature waive state sovereign immunity absence unequivocal waiver specifically applicable jurisdiction decline find california waived constitutional immunity iv respondent also contends enacting rehabilitation act congress abrogated constitutional immunity making argument respondent relies legislative history act inferences general statutory language reach respondent conclusion temper requirement well established cases congress unequivocally express intention abrogate eleventh amendment bar suits federal pennhurst ii supra quern jordan supra decline affirm congress may abrogate constitutionally secured immunity suit federal making intention unmistakably clear language statute fundamental nature interests implicated eleventh amendment dictates conclusion recently reiterated occupy special specific position constitutional system garcia san antonio metropolitan transit authority constitutionally mandated balance power federal government adopted framers ensure protection fundamental liberties powell dissenting guaranteeing sovereign immunity suit federal eleventh amendment serves maintain balance reluctance infer state immunity suit federal courts negated stems recognition vital role doctrine sovereign immunity federal system pennhurst ii supra congress power abrogate state immunity means certain circumstances usual constitutional balance federal government obtain congress may determining appropriate legislation purpose enforcing provisions fourteenth amendment provide private suits state officials constitutionally impermissible contexts fitzpatrick view fact incumbent upon federal courts certain congress intent finding federal law overrides guarantees eleventh amendment requirement congress unequivocally express intention statutory language ensures certainty also significant determining whether congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity courts must decide whether jurisdiction expanded although course duty say law marbury madison cranch appropriate rely clearest indications holding congress enhanced power see american fire cas finn jurisdiction federal courts carefully guarded expansion judicial interpretation reasons hold consistent quern edelman pennhurst ii congress must express intention abrogate eleventh amendment unmistakable language statute light principle must determine whether congress adopting rehabilitation act chosen override eleventh amendment section rehabilitation act provides pertinent part otherwise qualified handicapped individual defined section title shall solely reason handicap excluded participation denied benefits subjected discrimination program activity receiving federal financial assistance program activity conducted executive agency postal service stat amended set forth remedies procedures rights set forth title vi civil rights act et seq shall available person aggrieved act failure act recipient federal assistance federal provider assistance section title action proceeding enforce charge violation provision subchapter discretion may allow prevailing party reasonable attorney fee part costs finally consider position adopted appeals state consented suit federal accepting funds rehabilitation act reaching conclusion appeals relied extensive provisions act express intended recipients federal assistance reasoned case congressional enactment terms authorized suit designated plaintiffs general class defendants literally included state instrumentalities state participation program authorized congress effect consented abrogation immunity citing edelman jordan appeals thus concluded state participated received funds programs rehabilitation act implicitly consented sued recipient properly recognized mere receipt federal funds establish state consented suit federal citing florida dept health florida nursing home edelman jordan supra erred however concluding various provisions rehabilitation act addressed state necessarily consents suit federal participating programs funded statute decided today rehabilitation act evince unmistakable congressional purpose pursuant fourteenth amendment subject unconsenting jurisdiction federal courts act likewise falls far short manifesting clear intent condition participation programs funded act state consent waive constitutional immunity thus view statute enactment pursuant spending clause art see supra hold indication state california consented federal jurisdiction vi provisions rehabilitation act fall far short expressing unequivocal congressional intent abrogate eleventh amendment immunity state california specifically waived immunity suit federal view determinations judgment appeals must reversed ordered footnotes justice brennan dissent repeatedly asserts established eleventh amendment doctrine grounded principles essential structure federal system necessary protect cherished constitutional liberties people post see also post believe however eleventh amendment doctrine necessary support view federal system held framers constitution see infra framers believed played vital role system strong state governments essential serve counterpoise power federal government see federalist cooke ed federalist cooke ed new evidence discovered dissent federalist records state ratifying conventions available historians justices almost two centuries viewed isolation subject varying interpretations none framers questioned constitution created federal system authority expressly granted federal government remainder retained several see federalist nos constitution never ratified courts stripped sovereign authority except expressly provided constitution principle jurisdiction federal courts limited sovereign immunity without question reflection concern sovereignty employees missouri dept public health welfare marshall concurring result explained almost years ago state may sued without consent fundamental rule jurisprudence important bearing upon construction constitution become established repeated decisions entire judicial power granted constitution embrace authority entertain suit brought private parties state without consent given one brought citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state eleventh amendment even one brought citizens fundamental rule amendment exemplification ex parte new york citations omitted see also cases cited infra justice brennan dissent also argues absence jurisdiction federal courts exemp compliance laws bind every legal actor nation post claim wholly misconceives federal system justice marshall noted issue general immunity private suit merely susceptibility suit federal tribunals employees missouri dept public health welfare supra concurring result emphasis added denigrates judges serve state courts suggest enforce law land see martin hunter lessee wheat see also stone powell post remarkable view stare decisis justice brennan dissent decision today evinces lack respect precedent post single authority cited claim fact adoption dissent position require us overrule numerous decisions however one may view merits dissent historical argument principle hans louisiana fundamental principle sovereign immunity limits grant judicial authority art iii pennhurst ii affirmed time time present day north carolina temple fitts mcghee bell mississippi smith reeves palmer ohio duhne new jersey ex parte new york missouri fiske great northern life insurance read ford motor department treasury indiana georgia railroad banking redwine parden terminal railway docks mississippi employees missouri public health welfare edelman jordan pennhurst ii supra justice brennan long maintained settled view hans louisiana established holdings reasoning cited cases wrong see county oneida oneida indian nation brennan dissenting part pennhurst ii supra brennan dissenting employees missouri dept public health welfare supra brennan dissenting edelman jordan brennan dissenting view course entitled hold never accepted see reason make response scholarly elaboration today dissent expressing willingness overrule edelman jordan supra well least decisions followed hans louisiana see supra justice stevens unrave doctrine stare decisis florida dept health florida nursing home views decision pennhurst ii repudiat ing least cases post citing pennhurst ii supra stevens dissenting previously addressed length allegation decision pennhurst ii overruled precedents decline see pennhurst ii supra nn justice stevens ignore stare decisis case view minority two prior decisions ignored reasoning indeed unravel doctrine upon rule law depends petitioners assert rehabilitation act represent exercise congress fourteenth amendment authority enacted pursuant spending clause art cl petitioners conceded however rehabilitation act passed pursuant fourteenth amendment thus first analyze light congress power fourteenth amendment subject unconsenting federal jurisdiction see fitzpatrick bitzer part infra address reasoning appeals conclude accepting funds act state implicitly consen sued although appeals seemed state rehabilitation act adopted pursuant fourteenth amendment focusing whether state consented federal jurisdiction engaged analysis relevant spending clause enactments justice brennan justice marshall justice blackmun justice stevens join dissenting eleventh amendment doctrine grounded principles essential structure federal system necessary protect cherished constitutional liberties people doctrine might unobjectionable interpretation text constitution light changed circumstances unforeseen events full regard purposes underlying text always unique role eleventh amendment doctrine diverges text history virtually without regard underlying purposes genuinely fundamental interests consequence put federal judiciary unseemly position exempting compliance laws bind every legal actor nation believe doctrine rests flawed premises misguided history untenable vision needs federal system purports protect believe take advantage opportunity provided case reexamine doctrine historical jurisprudential foundations inquiry reveal professor shapiro words taken wrong turn today follows mistaken path respectfully dissent first address holding congress succeed abrogating sovereign immunity enacted rehabilitation act holding resulted examination statute legislative history determine whether congress intended impose obligation enforceable federal confine dissent indisputable evidence contrary language history section imposes obligation discriminate handicapped program activity receiving federal financial assistance language general unqualified contains indication whatsoever exemption intended moreover state governmental programs activities undoubtedly recipients large percentage federal funds given widespread state dependence federal funds quite incredible assume congress intend fully subject strictures legislative history confirms among primary targets introducing predecessor amendment title vi civil rights act representative vanik clearly indicated governments among primary targets legislation governments tax handicapped people parents relatives fail provide services opportunities provided government almost always exclude handicapped cong rec referred approvingly suit state pennsylvania raising issue educational opportunities handicapped see citing pennsylvania assn retarded children pennsylvania supp ed pa characterizing suit state two months later representative vanik noted range state actions disadvantage handicapped said state governments lack funds facilities medical care handicapped children favor higher income families tuition funding cong rec pointed unable define deal illnesses handicapped child xclusion handicapped children public schools illegal plead lack funds ibid similarly senator humphrey bill sponsor senate focused particularly suit institution mentally retarded demonstrating need bill see language used statute program activity receiving federal financial assistance long used impose obligations statutory schemes example title vi enacted bans discrimination basis race color national origin program activity receiving federal financial assistance soon enactment seven agencies promulgated regulations defined recipient federal financial assistance include state political subdivision state instrumentality state political subdivision see fed reg see generally guardians assn civil service new york city marshall dissenting federal agencies every cabinet department adopted similar regulations senator javits remarked debate title vi primarily trying reach units government individuals cong rec similarly title ix education amendments prohibits discrimination basis sex education program activity receiving federal financial assistance regulations governing title ix use definition recipient explicitly includes title vi regulations see cfr congress enacted examples titles vi ix plainly knew language statute include implementing regulations promulgated included definition recipient previously used implement title vi title ix see cfr congress held hearings implementation subsequently produced amendments statute enacted pub stat senate report accompanying amendments explicitly approved implementing regulations member congress questioned reach regulations describing another section amendments brought federal government within reach representative jeffords noted section applies federal government well state local recipients federal dollars cong rec representative sarasin emphasized one discriminate individual suffers handicap private employers state local governments certainly federal government amendments also addressed remedies violations remedies procedures rights set forth title vi civil rights act et seq shall available person aggrieved act failure act recipient federal assistance federal provider assistance section title ith respect state local bodies state local officials attorney fees similar items cost collected official official capacity funds agency control state local government regardless whether agency government named party cong rec ii rather interpretation intent congress decision rests current doctrine eleventh amendment sovereign immunity holds fundamental principle sovereign immunity limits grant judicial authority art iii constitution pennhurst state school hospital halderman despite presence clearly lawless behavior state government doctrine holds judicial authority extend suits individual state federal acknowledges supposed lack judicial power may remedied either state consent express congressional abrogation pursuant civil war amendments see fitzpatrick bitzer city rome perhaps pursuant congressional powers raised formidable obstacles congressional efforts abrogate immunity put place series special rules statutory draftsmanship congress must obey accord recognition act employees missouri dept public health welfare held congress must make intention clear sought lift sovereign immunity conditional participation federal program edelman jordan made still difficult congress act stating find waiver stated express language overwhelming implications text leave room reasonable construction pennhurst state school hospital halderman supra required unequivocal expression congressional intent finally today tightens noose requiring congress must express intention abrogate eleventh amendment unmistakable language statute ante emphasis added special rules statutory drafting justified justifiable efforts determine genuine intent congress reason advanced ordinary canons statutory construction inadequate ascertain intent congress rather special rules designed hurdles keep disfavored suits federal courts words test flows need maintain usual constitutional balance federal government ante doctrine thus based fundamental policy decision vaguely attributed framers article iii eleventh amendment federal courts hear suits brought individuals executes policy making difficult impossible congress create private rights action reliance supposed constitutional policy reverses ordinary role federal courts cases federal courts instruments national government seeing constitutional limitations obeyed interpreting congress enforcing federal laws eleventh amendment context however instead relies supposed constitutional policy disfavoring suits justification ignoring congress goal seems obstruct ability congress achieve ends otherwise constitutionally unexceptionable well within reach article powers sovereign immunity doctrine unfortunate results doctrine inconsistent essential function federal courts provide fair impartial forum uniform interpretation enforcement law land led development complex body technical rules made necessary need circumvent intolerable constriction federal jurisdiction otherwise occur rule ex parte young state may required obey federal law long plaintiff remembers name state official rather state defendant see alabama pugh long relief sought prospective rather retrospective edelman jordan intricate rules often create manifest injustices failing respond legitimate needs damages award may often practical remedy available plaintiff threat damages award may effective deterrent defendant willful violation federal law cf marshall dissenting prohibition damages awards thus imposes substantial costs plaintiffs members class congress sought protect injunctive relief permitted often intrusive expensive simple damages award doctrine unstable shall discuss doctrine lacks textual anchor firm historical foundation clear rationale result impossible determine extent principle state accountability rule law accommodated within competing framework state nonaccountability put place sovereign immunity doctrine reason unable agree content special rules applied acts congress determine whether abrogate state sovereign immunity compare parden terminal railway docks employees missouri dept public health welfare whatever rule decided upon given time applied retroactively actions taken congress see supra finally absence plausible limiting principles overruled ignored past cases seemed stand way vindication doubtful right created see pennhurst state school hospital halderman might tolerate results unprecedented intrusion congress lawmaking power consequent increase power courts development complex set rules circumvent obviously untenable results otherwise ensue lack respect precedent lessons past evident pennhurst sovereign immunity doctrine derived essential constitutional values protecting freedom people structure federal system sadly case instead paradoxical effect doctrine require federal courts protect violate federal law legal consequences conduct iii since began decade ago aggressively expand doctrine eleventh amendment sovereign immunity see employees missouri dept public health welfare supra modern scholars legal historians taken critical look historical record said support result recent research discovered collated substantial evidence constitutional doctrine state sovereign immunity rested mistaken historical premise flawed underpinning premise either constitution eleventh amendment embodied principle state sovereign immunity limit federal judicial power new evidence concerning drafting ratification original constitution indicates framers never intended constitutionalize doctrine state sovereign immunity consequently eleventh amendment occasionally suggested effort reestablish limitation federal judicial power granted article iii given limited terms written amendment narrow technical language understood instituted sweeping new limitation federal judicial power whenever individual attempts sue state close examination historical records reveals rather different status doctrine state sovereign immunity federal simply constitutional principle state sovereign immunity constitutionally mandated policy excluding suits federal hans louisiana stated permit citizen bring suit state federal attempt strain constitution law construction never imagined dreamed text constitution course contains explicit adoption principle state sovereign immunity passage hans thus implies everyone involved framing ratification constitution believed article iii included tacit prohibition exercise judicial power state sued federal early history constitution reveals however hans mistaken unamended article iii often read contrary prohibit exercise judicial power assertion state sovereign immunity defense even cases arising solely state law useful begin text article iii section provides judicial power shall extend cases law equity arising constitution laws treaties made shall made authority cases affecting ambassadors public ministers consuls cases admiralty maritime jurisdiction controversies shall party controversies two state citizens another state citizens different citizens state claiming lands grants different state citizens thereof foreign citizens subjects understand dispute concerning diversity clauses crucial understand relationship heads jurisdiction grants jurisdiction article iii read disjunctively federal judicial power may extend case falls within enumerated jurisdictional heads thus federal hear case even parties citizens state exercise jurisdiction cases citizens different even case arise federal law important present purposes language unamended article iii alone permit federal courts exercise jurisdiction suits noncitizen alien suing state claim violation state law standard interpretation article iii gave special importance interpretation diversity clauses clauses terms permitted federal jurisdiction suit state noncitizen state alien particular suits plaintiff noncitizen alien defendant state yet doctrine sovereign immunity formally forbade maintenance suits state courts although actual effect bar frustrating legal claims state unclear thus question left open terms two clauses whether state law sovereign immunity barred exercise federal judicial power plaintiff seeking federal jurisdiction state diversity clauses asserting cause action based state law since federal question admiralty claim provide independent basis jurisdiction depend identity parties read two clauses abrogate sovereign immunity defense find article iii substantive federal limitation state law although state previously create cause action liable cause action used least citizens aliens federal courts sue state particularly troublesome prospect incurred debts dated back revolutionary war debts naturally find way hands noncitizens aliens first sign default expected promptly sue state federal state effort retain sovereign immunity courts turn futile moreover resulting abrogation sovereign immunity operate retroactively even debts incurred years constitution adopted either contracting parties expected judicial remedy state available become basis causes action brought two clauses federal short danger diversity clauses read permit suits effect limiting state law way otherwise provided constitution original constitution prior bill rights contained express limitations state power yet find article iii limit state action despite fact state sovereign created given cause action article iii made impossible state effectively assert sovereign immunity defense action records constitutional convention reveal substantial controversy concerning diversity clauses language article iii provides one guide meaning undoubtedly consistent suits heads jurisdiction example suit arising federal law brought citizen state heads jurisdiction example suit brought diversity clause however suit state threaten displace prior defense sovereign immunity defenses force applicable federal causes action hand suit state suggested threaten displace extant sovereign immunity defense examination debates surrounding state ratification conventions proves productive various references state sovereign immunity appear discussions diversity clause virtually comments addressed problem created state debts predated constitution state creditors may often meager judicial remedies case default yet even sensitive context number participants debates welcomes abrogation sovereign immunity thought followed clauses debates directly address question suits admiralty cases federal law state law govern nonetheless apparent willingness many delegates read clause abrogating sovereign immunity causes action suggests even willing permit suits cases congress authorized suits exercise article powers virginia debates included detailed discussion diversity clause first mention clause explicitly george mason opponent new constitution quoting clause referred dispute virginia confiscation property belonging lord fairfax asserted claims respecting lands every liquidated account claim state tried federal disgraceful state brought bar justice like delinquent individual sovereignty state arraigned like culprit private offender undergo mortification think power perfectly unnecessary let us pursue subject farther done judgment obtained state issue fieri facias ludicrous say put state body jail judgment enforced power executed granted elliot debates madison responded next day federal jurisdiction controversies state citizens another state much objected perhaps without reason power individuals call state operation state wish bring suit citizen must brought federal give satisfaction individuals prevent citizens state may claim dissatisfied state courts rate delegates wholly satisfied madison explanation patrick henry opponent ratification next speaker referring mason said honorable friend remarks right respect incarcerating state ease mind honorable gentleman tell manner money paid suit state individuals state cast returning attack madison henry doubt concerning meaning diversity clause controversies state citizens another state construction perfectly incomprehensible says seldom happen state demands individuals nothing warrant assertion says state may plaintiff gentlemen pervert clear expressions usual meaning language people end argument says paper shall cognizance controversies state citizens another state without discriminating plaintiff defendant says honorable gentleman contrary state plaintiff state debtor reciprocity seems gentlemen may put construction please justice done one party john marshall next took debate respect disputes state citizens another state jurisdiction decried unusual vehemence hope gentleman think state called bar federal case present many cases legislature virginia party yet state sued rational suppose sovereign power dragged intent enable recover claims individuals residing contend construction warranted words say partiality state defendant individual proceed obtain judgment state though may sued state necessary avoided see difficulty making state defendant prevent plaintiff avoided object system account individual claim particular state presumed application legislature obtain satisfaction state recover claim citizen another state without establishment tribunals marshall observations go unanswered edmund randolph member committee detail constitutional convention proponent constitution referred back mason remarks honorable gentleman asked put body state prison independent government refuses justice individuals war consequence bloody alternative referred think whatever law nations may say doubt respecting construction state may plaintiff defendant taken away words state shall party virginia convention ratified constitution madison marshall remarks cited evidence inherent limitation article iii jurisdiction see edelman jordan monaco mississippi hans louisiana even adequately characterized substance views minority given convention mason henry pendleton randolph took opposing position equally important entire discussion focused question virginia liability debts land claims predated constitution clearly arose virginia law question excited interest whether diversity clause abrogated sovereign immunity defense available state suit concerning issues state issue arose state conventions receive detailed attention virginia debate press sheds light effect constitution state sovereign immunity number influential publications sounded alarm saw unwarranted extension federal judicial power worked diversity clause federal farmer commonly identified richard henry lee virginia one influential widely published objected powers proposed lodged general government judicial department think unnecessarily mean powers respecting questions arising upon internal laws respective proper federal judiciary powers federal legislature power deciding finally laws union art sect powers federal judiciary extended among things cases state citizens another state citizens different state citizens thereof foreign citizens subjects actions cases except state government brought finally determined law courts respectively words exclude courts jurisdiction cases concurrent jurisdiction inferior federal courts documentary history ratification constitution kaminski saladino hereinafter documentary history emphasis added far may proper admit foreigner citizen another state bring actions state governments failed performing many promises made war doubtful far may proper humble state bring answer individual law worthy consideration subject actions new jurisdiction subject many defendants actions processes contemplation parties contract made engagements existing citizens different citizens foreigners foreigners citizens made parties contemplating remedies existing laws new remedy proposed given federal courts founded principle whatever another noted writer published pseudonym brutus also attacked saw untoward implications diversity clause conceive clause extends power judicial controversies arising state citizens another state improper exercise prove pernicious destructive improper subjects state answer law suit individual humiliating degrading government believe authority state ever submitted every state union largely indebted individuals payment debts given notes payable bearer least case state whenever citizen another state becomes possessed one notes may commence action general government see way prevented recovering power judicial clause extend cases stated executed produce utmost confusion progress crush beneath weight extend cases confess utterly loss give meaning complete storing ed federal farmer objectors say causes state citizens another state citizens different state citizens thereof citizens subjects foreign left decision particular state courts cases enumerated constitution seem admitted properly cognizable federal courts respect former may said generally local laws several may differ particular may pass laws unjust nature partially unjust regard foreigners citizens seems wise provision puts power foreigners citizens resort may reasonably expect obtain impartial justice particular cogent reason securing foreigners trial either first instance appeal federal respect foreigners form one nation nation responsible conduct members towards foreign nations citizens subjects therefore possess power justice latter without power single state one citizens might embroil whole union foreign war documentary history federalist papers written influence ratification debate new york hamilton discussed issue state sovereign immunity plain terms shall take occasion mention supposition excited alarm upon mistaken grounds suggested assignment public securities one state citizens another enable prosecute state federal courts amount securities suggestion following considerations prove without foundation inherent nature sovereignty amenable suit individual without consent general sense general practice mankind exemption one attributes sovereignty enjoyed government every state union unless therefore surrender immunity plan convention remain danger intimated must merely ideal circumstances necessary produce alienation state sovereignty discussed considering article taxation need repeated recurrence principles established satisfy us color pretend state governments adoption plan divested privilege paying debts way free every constraint flows obligations good faith contracts nation individuals binding conscience sovereign pretensions compulsive force confer right action independent sovereign purpose authorize suits debts owe recoveries enforced evident done without waging war contracting state ascribe federal courts mere implication destruction right state governments power involve consequence altogether forced unwarrantable federalist pp cooke ed emphasis original sober assessment ratification debates thus shows firm consensus concerning extent judicial power extended suits certain opponents ratification like mason henry federal farmer believed diversity clause abrogated state sovereign immunity state causes action predicted dire consequences result hand certain proponents constitution like pendleton randolph pickering agreed concerning interpretation article iii believed constituted argument favor new constitution finally madison marshall hamilton believed state made defendant federal diversity suit majority recorded comments question contravene statement hans see supra suits federal inconceivable granted comments thus expressed belief state sovereign immunity defense suit federal diversity cases question remains whether debates evince contemporary understanding concerning amenability suit grants jurisdiction although question received little direct attention debates permit conclusions drawn first belief diversity clause abrogated state sovereign immunity federal implies federal question admiralty clauses effect curious indeed article iii abrogated state immunity causes action arose state laws federal government legislative authority gave state absolute right sovereign immunity defense charged violation federal law second even hamilton believed clause abrogate state sovereign immunity federal also left substantial room suits plan convention required result given supremacy clause enumeration congressional powers article plan convention requires answer federal courts violations duties lawfully imposed congress exercise article powers third repeated references hamilton others need federal courts able exercise jurisdiction extensive congress powers legislate suggests congress substantive power article enact legislation providing rights action federal courts article iii given jurisdiction hear cases ratification constitution congress provided first judiciary act stat shall exclusive jurisdiction controversies civil nature state party except state citizens except also state citizens aliens latter case shall original exclusive jurisdiction act provide federal courts original jurisdiction although provide considerable jurisdiction appeals cases state courts despite controversy suability provision act giving original jurisdiction diversity clauses surprisingly aroused little debate congress see fletcher disputes doubt diversity jurisdiction gave remedy federal first case docketed vanstophorst maryland dall suit dutch creditors sought judgments recover principal interest revolutionary war loans state maryland although number cases brought prior passage eleventh amendment significant course chisholm georgia dall chisholm action assumpsit citizen south carolina price military goods sold georgia case squarely presented question whether state sued federal held federal jurisdiction extended suits diversity clause five sitting justices delivered opinion justice iredell dissent several features chisholm crucial understanding meaning eleventh amendment first two members committee detail drafted article iii convention involved chisholm case believed state sued federal edmund randolph washington attorney general previously represented plaintiff vanstophorst maryland supra represented chisholm plaintiff argued strongly state must amenable suit federal result plain words article iii necessity enforcing constitutional prohibitions implicit consent suit occurred ratification constitution justice james wilson another drafters article iii delivered lengthy opinion urged sovereign immunity proper application within new republic second chisholm case although case involved contract brought pursuant diversity clause directly contracts clause constitution see argument counsel case thus squarely raised issue whether suit state based cause action maintainable state brought federal pursuant diversity clause case present question whether state sued federal cause action arose federal law third even justice iredell dissent go far argue state never sued federal sketched argument follows think established following particulars constitution far respects judicial authority carried effect acts legislature appointing courts prescribing methods proceeding congress provided new law regard case expressly referred us old principles old law must recourse manner authorize present suit either precedent analogy decision chisholm handed february february resolution introduced house representatives stating state shall liable made party defendant judicial courts established established authority suit person persons citizens foreigners body politic corporate whether within without warren history rev ed judicial power shall extend suits law equity commenced prosecuted one citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state annals cong time congress reconvened december suit brought massachusetts british loyalist whose properties confiscated vassal massachusetts georgia responded angrily decision chisholm massachusetts legislature reacted suit enacting resolution calling speedy effectual measures obtain constitutional amendment including constitutional convention resolves massachusetts virginia followed similar resolution acts virginia issue thus come head federalists controlled congress doubt felt considerable pressure act avoid constitutional convention january resolution introduced senator whose identity known text eleventh amendment ultimately enacted judicial power shall construed extend suit law equity commenced prosecuted one citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state annals cong emphasis added house representatives one attempt amend resolution amendment added end senate version following language state shall previously made provision courts whereby suit may prosecuted effect resolution course ratified chisholm result sued diversity clause given opportunity shift litigation courts rejected house proceeded ratify amendment vote march although chronology ratification somewhat unclear president adams certified ratified four years later january argued eleventh amendment intended constitutionalize broad principle state sovereign immunity always elided question congress chosen language amendment enacted state broad principle shown say least consensus time constitution ratification whether doctrine state sovereign immunity application federal even consensus however eleventh amendment represent particularly cryptic way embody consensus constitution congress desired enshrine state sovereign immunity federal courts cases instance easily adopted first resolution introduced february house alternatively strong sovereign immunity principle derived amendment merely omitted last words enacted resolution see gibbons however take particularly close reading eleventh amendment see stops far short article iii provided judicial power shall extend controversies state citizens another state state foreign citizens subjects eleventh amendment used identical language stating judicial power extend suit law equity one citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state congruence language suggests amendment intended simply adopt narrow view diversity clauses henceforth state sued federal basis jurisdiction plaintiff citizen another state alien may argued true intentions second congress revealed use words shall construed text amendment according argument congress intended merely qualify diversity clauses also establish rule construction barring exercise federal jurisdiction case even one otherwise maintainable heads jurisdiction noncitizen alien suing state view least consistent language amendment lead conclusion suits noncitizens aliens state never permitted suits citizen permissible recent scholarship however suggests strongly view incorrect particular two explanations use terms advanced argued words natural means congress rebuke construction words state citizens another state chisholm longer words construed extend federal jurisdiction suits brought clause state defendant see fletcher others argued words added assure retrospective application eleventh amendment see jacobs course latter meaning intended words intended effect dismissed cases pending docket diversity clause amendment ratified hollingsworth virginia dall language eleventh amendment legislative history attendant historical circumstances strongly suggest amendment intended remedy interpretation constitution diversity clauses article iii abrogating state law sovereign immunity causes action brought federal courts economy explanation accounts rather legalistic terms amendment article iii written require extravagant assumptions unexpressed intent congress state legislatures strong point favor original constitution embody principle sovereign immunity limit federal judicial power simply reason believe eleventh amendment established broad principle first time historical record fact confirms far correcting error made chisholm interpretation eleventh amendment makes similar mistake chisholm interpreted clause article iii work major substantive change state law least cases arising state law found way federal eleventh amendment corrected error henceforth required heads jurisdiction article iii construed work kind drastic modification state law current interpretation eleventh amendment makes opposite mistake construing eleventh amendment work major substantive change federal law according eleventh amendment imposes substantive limit necessary proper clause article limiting remedies congress may authorize state violations federal law construction suffers defect chisholm construe enumeration heads jurisdiction impose substantive limits lawmaking authority article iii grants jurisdiction federal courts broad lawmaking authority congress congress acting within article powers creates legal right remedy neither right remedy violates provision constitution outside article iii congress may entrust adjudication claims based newly created right federal courts even defendant state neither article iii eleventh amendment imposes independent limit lawmaking authority congress view makes sense language history purposes article iii eleventh amendment also view adopted earliest interpretations amendment marshall enactment eleventh amendment number suits federal courts largely curtailed amendment eliminated constitutional basis provisions first judiciary act granting original jurisdiction suits alien noncitizen general statutory grant original jurisdiction federal courts suits arise head jurisdiction nonetheless marshall number opportunities confront issue state sovereign immunity decisions reflect consistent understanding limited effect amendment structure federal jurisdiction outside diversity clauses justices marshall lived ratification constitution decision chisholm georgia subsequent enactment eleventh amendment marshall views meaning amendment take particular importance admiralty perhaps significant head federal jurisdiction early century hamilton noted passage federalist papers bigoted idolizers state authority thus far shewn disposition deny national judiciary cognizance maritime causes federalist cooke ed although admiralty cases expected arise defendants marshall instances confronted issue showed strong reluctance construe eleventh amendment interfere admiralty jurisdiction federal courts peters cranch adjudicated controversy whether certain funds proceeds admiralty prize sale dating belonged commonwealth pennsylvania private claimant commonwealth claimed money result judgment favor private claimant claim based judgment received national prize established articles confederation money claimed commonwealth held state treasurer since died chief justice marshall writing held eleventh amendment interfere traditional suit state official recovery funds held notice adverse claim according marshall suit maintained state official even though relief sought recovery funds marshall carefully avoided deciding whether eleventh amendment barred action necessary bring state proceeds actual property pennsylvania however wrongfully acquired disclosure fact presented case unnecessary give opinion nonetheless marshall construction eleventh amendment preserving essential remedy money judgment effect ran state left federal admiralty jurisdiction intact later year justice bushrod washington sat peters heard sequel peters arose state resisted execution peters judgment bright cas cc agreeing peters state treasurer sued funds private capacity went note eleventh amendment terms applies suits law equity framers amendment add words cases admiralty maritime jurisdiction amendment construed extend admiralty cases washington thus read amendment require broad constitutional prohibition suits federal moreover given importance admiralty jurisdiction time congress failure include admiralty suits express terms statute unlikely oversight marshall refused hold eleventh amendment barred suits admiralty governor georgia madrazo pet appeal federal circuit decision claimant alleged state georgia entitled proceeds prize sale chief justice marshall writing held suit reality suit state although governor named defendant allegation violated federal state law thus case made justifies decree personally dismissed case circuit jurisdiction amendment constitution extend proceedings admiralty case original jurisdiction ibid writing justice joseph story noted doubted whether amendment extends cases admiralty maritime jurisdiction proceeding rem personam jurisdiction founded upon possession thing state interpose claim property act merely character defendant actor besides language amendment judicial power shall construed extend suit law equity suit admiralty correctly speaking suit law equity often spoken contradistinction story commentaries constitution congress endow federal courts general jurisdiction nonetheless several opportunities decide cases suit brought state state appeal taken eleventh amendment constitutionalized state sovereign immunity limit article iii federal judicial power operated limit original appellate jurisdiction nothing text subsequent interpretations article iii suggests federal judicial power extends broadly hear appeals decide original cases although largely ignored consequence constitutional sovereign immunity doctrine consequence marshall squarely faced cohens virginia wheat chief justice marshall addressed question effect eleventh amendment appellate jurisdiction review criminal conviction obtained virginia state counsel state argued either original constitution eleventh amendment denied federal courts power hear appeal state sued writ error marshall noted outset opinion article iii provides federal jurisdiction cases described without making terms exception whatever without regard condition party repeating principle several times chief justice stated think constitution originally stood appellate jurisdiction cases arising constitution laws treaties arrested circumstance state party marshall went consider applicability eleventh amendment holding criminal defendant petition writ error properly understood suit commenced prosecuted individual state marshall stated alternative holding mistaken error affect case writ error suit sense amendment suit commenced prosecuted citizen another state citizen subject foreign state within amendment governed entirely constitution originally framed already seen origin judicial power extended cases arising constitution laws without respect parties cases original jurisdiction given judicial power exercised appellate form every case power exercised original appellate form wisdom congress may direct exception cases original jurisdiction given none judicial power extends original jurisdiction inferior courts excluded constitution original jurisdiction far constitution gives rule judicial power find constitution prohibition exercise every case judicial power exercised osborn involved several important eleventh amendment issues state ohio seized bank notes specie bank pursuant statute imposing tax bank statute evidently unconstitutional holding mcculloch maryland wheat bank treated private corporation division federal government purposes suit obtained injunction federal prohibiting state enforcing tax requiring return seized funds state ohio appealed relying part eleventh amendment bar proceedings chief justice marshall opinion carefully explains sovereign immunity principles eleventh amendment application state party record may think laid rule admits exception cases jurisdiction depends party party named record consequently amendment restrains jurisdiction granted constitution suits necessity limited suits state party record amendment full effect constitution construed construed jurisdiction never extended suits brought state citizens another state aliens lack original jurisdiction combined paucity admiralty actions deprived marshall opportunity rule often effect eleventh amendment state sovereign immunity federal moreover rulings demonstrate certain reluctance squarely decide extent suable federal perhaps result sensitivity unpopular decision chisholm georgia lack effective governmental power enforce decisions centripetal forces driving nation toward civil war nonetheless careful reading marshall precedents indicates marshall consistently adopted narrow technical readings amendment import thus carefully retained full measure admiralty jurisdiction iv marshall precedents original understanding eleventh amendment survived near end century congress gave federal courts general original jurisdiction stat first time suits brought federal based existence federal cause action hans louisiana citizen louisiana sued state payment bonds state government repudiated plaintiff claimed violation contracts clause held favor state ordered suit dismissed hans taken stand proposition eleventh amendment despite terms bars federal courts hearing suits citizens state argued ambiguous opinion need interpreted way see employees missouri dept public health welfare brennan dissenting hans relied justice iredell dissent chisholm noted supra rested absence statutory cause action chisholm state georgia reserved question constitutional status state sovereign immunity see hans noted presumption anomalous proceedings suits intended raised constitution anomalous unheard constitution adopted opinion thus sensibly read dismissed suit ground federal cause action supported plaintiff suit causes action course subject ancient doctrine sovereign immunity whether departure sound interpretation eleventh amendment occurred hans later cases misread hans however relatively unimportant hans constitutional holding rests terms two premises first opinion cites comments madison marshall hamilton ratification debates concludes permitting suits startling unexpected strain constitution law construction never imagined dreamed historical record outlined demonstrates history plainly mistaken numerous individuals time constitution ratification believed exactly effect hans found unimaginable moreover even comments madison marshall hamilton need taken advocate constitutional doctrine state sovereign immunity read literally context three explicitly addressed particular problem diversity clause three vitally concerned constitutionally unauthorized displacement state law creditors rights remedies worked incorrect reading diversity clause three fully consistent recognition constitution neither abrogated instituted state sovereign immunity rather left ancient doctrine found defense available causes action prosecuted federal second opinion relies heavily supposedly anomalous result eleventh amendment read literally cases arising constitution laws state may sued federal courts citizens though sued like cause action citizens foreign state repeatedly relied hans establishing broad principle state immunity suit federal historical record demonstrates hans constitutional holding rested misconceived history misguided logic doctrine thus created pernicious era sovereign immunity generally recognized courts legislatures anachronistic unnecessary remnant feudal legal system see great northern life ins read frankfurter dissenting muskopf corning hospital cal prosser law torts ed aggressively expanded scope doctrine required enhance liberty people accordance constitution protections accept doctrine required structure federal system created framers accept yet current doctrine intrudes ideal liberty law protecting consequences illegal conduct decision obstructs sound operation federal system limiting ability congress take steps deems necessary proper achieve national goals within constitutional authority respectfully dissent see shapiro wrong turns eleventh amendment pennhurst case harv rev instance year congress considering state governments received billion revenue federal government grown billion bureau census historical statistics governmental finances employment rehabilitation act amended year original enactment pub stat senate report accompanied amendment acknowledged section patterned almost identical antidiscrimination language section civil rights act section education amendments sic pp amendments history clarified scope shed significant light intent enacted alexander choate representative jeffords also noted seem right federal government require localities eliminate discrimination handicapped wherever exists remain exempt cong rec stringent see ante test applies purported state waivers sovereign immunity mirror image test applies congressional abrogation state sovereign immunity today decides congress desires effectively abrogate state sovereign immunity must expressly statutory language similarly decides state waiver effective must specifically applicable jurisdiction ibid words lthough state general waiver sovereign immunity may subject suit state enough waive immunity guaranteed eleventh amendment ibid ordinarily federal expected faithfully decide questions courts state think federal deciding scope state waiver sovereign immunity attempt construe state law sovereign immunity state making use relevant legislative history legal precedents yet despite absence identifiable federal interest justify departure state law eschews effort construe california constitutional waiver requirement accordance california law see muskopf corning hospital cal abrogating state sovereign immunity tort cases holding anachronism without rational basis exist ing force inertia instead seems believe eleventh amendment justifies imposing state legislatures well congress special rules statutory draftsmanship make waiver state sovereign immunity federal successful apparently even want make federal forum available fair adjudication grievances arising federal law deterred see also pennhurst state school hospital halderman reluctance infer state immunity suit federal courts negated stems recognition vital role doctrine sovereign immunity federal system case decision relentlessly apply rule demonstrates rule serves purpose obstructing congress congress enacted idea must obey extreme rule adopted first time today roots rule found employees missouri dept public health welfare decided april cf parden terminal railway docks employees case course lay extreme rule adopted today event bill became first enacted six months previously see cong rec enactment bill senate enactment bill house vetoed president reenacted february see cong rec senate mar house another veto followed legislation finally signed law september see senate enactment final bill house enactment final bill given chronology hold congress abrogate immunity unequivocally express intention statutory language change rules lawmaking congress already acted congress like officials expected predict future course constitutional law procunier navarette rules created specifically permit suits appear barred thoroughgoing interpretation eleventh amendment bar exercise federal judicial power suits instance lincoln county luning established eleventh amendment bar suits local governmental units addition seems longstanding though unarticulated rule eleventh amendment limit exercise otherwise proper federal appellate jurisdiction suits state courts instance bacchus imports dias adjudicated taxpayer appeal unfavorable judgment suit state officials refund taxes cf edelman jordan compare martinez california adjudicating appeal action brought state state quern jordan holding abrogate state sovereign immunity federal see also williams vermont summa california ex rel state lands aloha airlines director taxation hawaii thomas review board ind employment security bonelli cattle arizona case instance damages may well practical relief available respondent originally brought suit alleging state improperly denied employment graduate student assistant recreational therapist even brought suit state officials well state reasonable suppose six years later attained degree obtain benefit injunction ordering end discrimination handicapped hiring graduate student assistants people scanlon shoes damages nothing bivens six unknown federal narcotics agents congress course may decide given case remedial scheme limited either damages injunctive relief cf statute limiting remedy preventive relief defendants role case interpret congress respect scope permissible relief eleventh amendment context however seems decided supposed constitutional policy disfavoring suits justifies limiting scope relief regardless apparent congress see fletcher historical interpretation eleventh amendment narrow construction affirmative grant jurisdiction rather prohibition jurisdiction stan rev hereinafter fletcher gibbons eleventh amendment state sovereign immunity reinterpretation colum rev hereinafter gibbons jacobs eleventh amendment sovereign immunity hereinafter jacobs field eleventh amendment sovereign immunity doctrines rev hereinafter field nowak scope congressional power create causes action state governments history eleventh fourteenth amendments colum rev orth interpretation eleventh amendment case study judicial power rev shapiro wrong turns eleventh amendment pennhurst case harv rev engdahl immunity accountability positive governmental wrongs rev professor jaffe explained doctrine sovereign immunity english practice prior rarely bar effective relief legitimate claims government see jaffe suits governments officers sovereign immunity harv rev judge gibbons recent essay similarly points doctrine sovereign immunity colonies may also limited scope see gibbons see fletcher jacobs reported committee detail original draft provided jurisdiction tribunal shall extend cases national legislature may assign involving national peace harmony collection revenue disputes citizens different disputes state citizen citizens another state disputes different disputes subjects citizens countries concerned cases admiralty jurisdn angle brackets source omitted farrand records federal convention pp rev ed hereinafter farrand jurisdiction appellate except instances legislature shall make original ibid interestingly committee draft article iii james wilson handwriting diversity clause written margin another committee member john rutledge south carolina see putnam federal courts given admiralty jurisdiction cornell facsimile original document number possible grounds state liability existed virginia eve state ratification convention aside problem debts owed state treaty paris stat britain included number provisions subject liability british creditors article treaty recognized completed state confiscations escheats british property article vi however prohibited escheats yet completed virginia like provided confiscation debts owed british creditors discharge debts payment state treasury see gibbons treaty thus potentially subjected virginia substantial liability british creditors trying collect debts although enforcement treaty provisions largely impossible articles confederation see generally see also elliot debates federal constitution hereinafter elliot debates discussion problem land confiscation interpret marshall remarks endorse principle wholesale state immunity suit cause action state federal federal render inconsistent views later expressed chief justice see infra discussion clause initiated mason randolph earlier made much point summarizing views constitution admire part forces virginia pay debts elliot debates example draft constitution referred committee detail convention provided hat jurisdiction national judiciary shall extend cases arising laws passed general legislature questions involve national peace harmony farrand suggested remarks opponents constitution given less weight however argument made concerning remarks madison marshall especially light marshall later interpretation article iii chief justice see infra fervent desire ratification led downplay features new document arousing controversy see field element debate suggests broader concern repeated reference problem enforcing judgment state course even statements made context discussion diversity clause participants debate may well attention directed need ultimately vindicated civil war enforce federal law regardless means necessary enforcement event categorically rejected difficulty enforcing judgments ground permitting avoid obligations long established state may claim sovereign immunity sued another state article iii clause see south dakota north carolina sued see texas moreover prospective injunctive relief permitted actions pleaded state official see edelman jordan may raise enforcement problems difficult raised judgment damages suit state cf cooper aaron discussion clause conventions see gibbons pennsylvania north carolina fletcher jacobs pennsylvania pennsylvania convention instance james wilson approved clause drafted committee detail citizen controversy another state tribunal parties may stand equal footing elliot debates essay cited also found complete storing ed professor storing questioned attribution richard henry lee see main antifederalists quoting letter raising question whether diversity clause expose every state sued new public securities holden citizens documentary history widely reprinted essay federalist tench coxe hen trial citizens state another government another private citizen obliged go constituted state citizens dispute appeal disinterested federal documentary history pamphlet published philadelphia reprinted elsewhere indeed privilege oppressing citizens bad laws bad administration moment mischief extends beyond state begins affect citizens strangers national welfare salutary controul power check evil restore strength security well honesty right offending state hamilton used phrase plan convention frequently synonym constitution see federalist concordance engeman erler hofeller eds discussion taxation hamilton adverted hamilton said plan convention aims partial union consolidation state governments clearly retain rights sovereignty act exclusively delegated federalist cooke ed emphasis original constitution delegated national government general power define defenses causes action consequently nothing article iii abrogated state sovereign immunity causes action federal state courts hand constitution delegated national government series enumerated powers made federal laws enacted pursuant thereto law land therefore surrendered immunity suit federal causes action constitution ratified hamilton discussed need jurisdiction instance avail restrictions authority state legislatures without constitutional mode enforcing observance plan convention prohibited variety things incompatible interests union others principles good government federalist cooke ed constitutional mode enforcing federal laws according hamilton federal judiciary ibid insofar thus given powers federal government plan convention longer full sovereigns may subjected suit number scholars noted comments hamilton elsewhere federalist papers strongly suggest foresaw necessity suits federal see fletcher gibbons field view power federal courts jurisdiction congruent power congress legislate article strongly supported writings hamilton well comments made defense article iii see federalist cooke ed things political axioms propriety judicial power government legislative may ranked among number elliot debates remarks madison respect laws union necessary expedient judicial power correspond legislative objected one final piece evidence concerning meaning original article iii comes amendments proposed various state ratification conventions new york convention submitted amendment first congress nothing constitution consideration contained construed authorize suit brought state manner whatever elliot debates suggests least new york delegates agree hamilton reading diversity clause virginia north carolina rhode island massachusetts new hampshire also proposed amendments modified eliminated diversity clause see fletcher felt need amendments suggests delegates conventions find limitation article iii indeed recent scholarship seems unanimously agree weight evidence statement hans see jacobs field gibbons fletcher first judiciary act may well suggest congress understanding suable federal diversity clause although act differentiate plaintiffs defendants section provided shall exclusively jurisdiction suits proceedings ambassadors law exercise consistently law nations congress thought suable federal diversity clause easily provided shall exercise jurisdiction state exercise consistently state law addition elsewhere act congress assigned jurisdiction cases plaintiff see stat district jurisdiction suits common law sue subject jurisdictional amount stat circuit jurisdiction civil suits dispute plaintiffs petitioners congress exercised discrimination assigning jurisdiction cases state citizens another state see mathis eleventh amendment adoption interpretation rev discussing cases jacobs precise facts chisholm subject scholarly dispute compare warren history plaintiff chisholm executor asserting claim behalf estate british citizen mathis plaintiff chisholm executor estate south carolina citizen traditional account plaintiff identified acting behalf british citizen may explain eleventh amendment modified diversity clause well diversity clause likely chisholm brought directly contracts clause constitution prior fletcher peck cranch clear contracts clause applied contracts state party moreover case involved simple breach contract law impairing obligation contract clause applied see shawnee sewerage drainage stearns brown colorado finally certainly clear time chisholm contracts clause provided plaintiff private right action damages chisholm thus suit cause action assumpsit state georgia pursuant diversity clause justice iredell added conceded dicta much however said constitution may improper intimate present opinion strongly construction admit circumstances compulsive suit state recovery money emphasized however need decide broader question opinion hold however reserve proper one according sentiments case may deemed measure resolution reported annals congress reported contemporary newspaper accounts see gibbons case unreported discussed goebel history detailed explanation political situation facing washington administration congress time see gibbons amendment read full judicial power extends cases law equity one party suit shall prosecuted one citizens another state citizens subjects foreign state cause action shall arisen ratification amendment see jacobs nn might argued congress rejected senator gallatin proposal exempted causes action operation amendment congress intended leave intact part jurisdiction potentially left open suit argument however untenable first ignores language amendment congress generally concerned suits article iii heads jurisdiction rational reason direct eleventh amendment suits noncitizens foreigners second congress may well rejected gallatin proposal precisely adopt proposal implied limitation ability federal courts hear nontreaty based claims thus congress rejection proposal may well based desire preserve full contours article iii jurisdiction rather desire limit third federal courts general original jurisdiction first judiciary act although substantial appellate jurisdiction cases originating state courts refusing first judiciary act grant original jurisdiction federal courts congress evidently decided cases even arising treaty paris heard first instance state deciding enact eleventh amendment overrule chisholm congress decided clauses permit suits federal given two decisions congress little reason make exception decisions suits arose treaty finally case vassal massachusetts british loyalist brought challenge clause state confiscation property triggered movement constitutional convention see supra rejecting gallatin proposal authorized vassal suit congress doubt acted part squelch movement constitutional convention prepared embark defensible interpretation eleventh amendment consistent history purposes question whether amendment bars admiralty suits noncitizen alien state open current time text commentators arguments interpretation seem quite plausible event find much plausible leave construction words somewhat unclear leave construction much amendment superfluity construction judiciary act stat grant general jurisdiction federal circuit courts grant repealed one year later stat suit state brought diversity jurisdiction state citizen purposes see postal telegraph cable alabama justice washington explained exclusion admiralty jurisdiction part ground admiralty proceedings often rem judgment thus enforced without implicating delicate question execute judgment state bright although concern echoed difficulties raised debate ratification constitution difficulty executing judgment state ultimately rejected ground expand state sovereign immunity federal see supra dismissed original action brought madrazzo based claim ex parte madrazzo pet opinion apparently dismissed case eleventh amendment grounds mere personal suit state recover proceeds possession case dismissed eleventh amendment grounds hollingsworth virginia dall civil war justice story cited peters bright madrazzo support statement see doremus board education article iii limits federal jurisdiction apply appeal case new jersey state courts cf smith reeves state may consent suit courts subject always condition arising supremacy constitution laws made pursuance thereof final judgment highest state action brought consent may reviewed reexamined prescribed act congress denies plaintiff right title privilege immunity secured specially claimed constitution laws repetitions principle make point unmistakably judicial department authorized decide cases every description arising constitution laws general grant jurisdiction exception made cases state may party think case arising constitution laws cognizable courts union whoever may parties case think judicial power originally given extends cases arising constitution law whoever may parties worth noting often given broad reading marshall statements virginia ratification convention interpreting statements express marshall view constitutional doctrine state sovereign immunity federal courts element original understanding article iii see hans louisiana monaco mississippi chief justice discussion cohens however demonstrates may prudent give earlier statements less expansive interpretation suggested supra marshall statement course consistent view eleventh amendment bars jurisdiction suits prosecuted noncitizens aliens bar federal jurisdiction suits citizens state sued flatly inconsistent current position amendment despite language history interpreted constitutionalizing broad sovereign immunity principle like discussion earlier cohens evinces marshall understanding eleventh amendment construed narrowly accomplish purpose adopted worth noting troublesome case hypothesized cohens writ error taken noncitizen state arose years later marshall reached merits claim without even discussing possible eleventh amendment bar see worcester georgia pet although worcester discuss eleventh amendment issue issue raised plaintiff error see conclusion tension holding governor georgia madrazo pet discussed supra see suggested distinction cases cause action available federal admiralty law governor personally madrazo contrary case see fletcher example today hans held eleventh amendment barred citizen bringing suit state federal even though express terms amendment provide ante ex parte new york even extended hans view hans admiralty jurisdiction thus overruling justice washington holding eleventh amendment apply admiralty actions see bright cas cc discussed supra hans constitutional holding however use madison marshall hamilton comments substantially justifiable relevance material simply show common law recognize cause action debt sovereign since congress created action justifiably refused justice blackmun justice brennan justice marshall justice stevens join dissenting dissent join justice brennan opinion exhaustive historical review analysis demonstrate eleventh amendment error today persists justice brennan shows hans louisiana constitutional holding reads amendment words reconciled principled view congressional power justice brennan surely correct says ante case rests misconceived history misguided logic thus today compounds longstanding constitutional mistake shield legal obligations afforded prevailing construction eleventh amendment exemplification rule sovereign immunity ante quoting ex parte new york simply reconciled federal system envisioned basic document amendments indeed though mature vintage eleventh amendment cases spring soil tenth amendment jurisprudence recently abandoned garcia san antonio metropolitan transit authority modern reading hans supra national league cities usery derogation otherwise unquestioned congressional power gave broad scope circumscribed language reference principles federalism said inform language intuition underlying hans contemporary progeny truer federal structure proper view congressional power underlying national league cities dissent spare opinion predictable result grounds well need expatiate much already written suffices say adhere views expressed dissenting opinion edelman jordan see also florida dept health florida nursing home dissenting statement thus affirm judgment ground california willing recipient federal funds rehabilitation act consented suit accepted assistance fair reading statute legislative history indicates congress produced act exercise power fourteenth amendment thereby abrogated claim immunity state otherwise might raise see fry dissenting opinion eleventh amendment terms justified result hans tenth amendment terms prohibits congressional action sets mandatory ceiling wages state employees amendments simply examples understanding drafted ratified constitution sovereign many respects although legislative authority superseded congress many areas congress competent act congress nonetheless free deal state another individual business enterprise subject regulation justice stevens dissenting decision join justice brennan dissent departure opinion expressed florida dept health florida nursing home word explanation order explained notwithstanding belief edelman jordan incorrectly decided see concluded doctrine stare decisis required edelman followed since however felt constrained stare decisis expansion protective mantle sovereign immunity repudiated least cases decision pennhurst state school hospital halderman stevens dissenting additional study made abundantly clear edelman hans louisiana well properly characterized egregiously incorrect persuaded fresh examination eleventh amendment jurisprudence produce benefits far outweigh consequences unraveling doctrine stare decisis area law