Hans v. Louisiana
Hans v. Louisiana | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | 24 F. 55 (C.C.E.D. La. 1885) |
Subsequent | None |
Holding | |
No "arising under" jurisdiction granted either in federal law or in article III of the U.S. Constitution permits a citizen to sue his own state in federal court, except where that state consents to be sued. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Bradley, joined by Fuller, Miller, Field, Gray, Blatchford, Lamar, Brewer |
Concurrence | Harlan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; U.S. Const. amend. XI |
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), was a decision of the
Facts
The
Issue
The question facing the Court was "whether a state can be sued in a Circuit Court of the United States by one of its own citizens upon a suggestion that the case is one that arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States."
Furthermore, the Court was well aware that nearly a century earlier, in the Supreme Court decision in
Result
The Court suggested that the framers of the Constitution had not addressed the possibility of a citizen suing his own state because such a thing would simply be inconceivable to them. At the time the Constitution was written, states had always been immune from such suits, unless the state itself consented to be sued. Furthermore, the Judiciary Acts of 1789 and 1802 had granted the federal courts jurisdiction "concurrent with the courts of the several states," indicating that the Congress had not contemplated the possibility that the federal courts would have any powers unknown to the state courts.
Finally, the Court noted the argument made by Justice Marshall in another case, that the Supreme Court could hear appeals of a state's successful suit against a citizen precisely because this was not the same thing as a citizen's suit against the state. Instead, Marshall compared them to suits against the United States, which were clearly forbidden at the time.
Harlan's concurrence
Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote a brief concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome in the case, but asserting that the Court's criticism of the Chisholm case was misplaced. Harlan thought that Chisholm had been decided correctly, based on the language of the Constitution at the time of the decision.
Later developments
In 1987, Welch v. Texas Department of Highways[6] led to a 5–4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Antonin Scalia "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment." Four justices upheld Hans, while Justice Scalia concluded that Congress had assumed Hans when enacting the Jones Act and the Federal Employer's Liability Act.
In the late 1990s, the
See also
References
- ^ Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
- ^ "U.S. Constitution Annotated → Amendment XI. SUITS AGAINST STATES STATE → Sovereign Immunity → Expansion of the Immunity of the States". The Legal Information Institute from Cornell Law School at Cornell University. Archived from the original on April 7, 2020. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
- ^ Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706.
- ^ 134 U.S. 1, at 9.
- ^ "Constitution Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution → Elevententh Amendment → Amdt 11.1.3.2.2 Exceptions to Eleventh Amendment Immunity: Abrogation". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on July 26, 2020. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
- ^ "Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways, 483 U.S. 468 (1987)". Justia US Supreme Court Center. June 25, 1987. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
External links
- Works related to Hans v. Louisiana at Wikisource
- Text of Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress