Case BriefCon law, checks on judicial power (11th amendment)Carlson, 2/14/15Identity of CaseHans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)Page 161 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistorySome important context: Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793. Chisholm sold the state of Georgia some goods during the civil war and Georgia did not pay. Chisholm sued, Georgia declined to show up and got a default judgment against it. Appealed based on state sovereignty. 4 of the 5 justices of the supreme court ruled in favor of Chisholm, saying nothing in the constitution gave the states immunity from suit. These were judges who were former framers, after all. 1 justice, Iredell, violently dissents. The country (states) rise up in anger to protest their lack of sovereignty, and the 11th amendment is passed: “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.” Hans has some bonds from Louisiana, is a citizen of Louisiana. Louisiana passes a law saying that it does not have to pay back its bonds, Hans sues to recover the value of his now-a-donation to the state. Louisiana objects, crying that it has sovereign immunity. Hans is not embarrassed by the 11th amendment, as the plain language clearly states that judicial power does not cover suits between citizens of another state and the State, and he is a citizen of Louisiana. Statement of the IssueAre states sovereign from the suits of their own citizens? HoldingYes, they are. Iredell had it right and amendment 11 is going to be interpreted broadly to avoid another judge Iredell scandal. ReasoningNo good reason. State sovereignty has no place in a democracy. Here is what the court provides: The fact that the case/controversy arises under the constitution does not create an exception to state sovereignty (not allowed to pass laws abridging the right to contract). But doesn’t that mess with the supremacy of the constitution if citizens can’t sue states for violations of the constitution? Hamilton and the federalist papers: “it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to thesuit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind, and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every state in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the states…” But didn’t giving the courts jurisdiction over suits between states and citizens in article III equal a surrender of immunity? Bahhhh the courts are so