No. You can't sue a state without its permission. This is a very old rule from England called 'sovereign immunity.' The Constitution doesn't say clearly enough that this rule is gone. Forcing a state government into court is a really big deal, and we shouldn't allow it unless the Constitution used explicit words to say so.

Yes. Georgia can be sued. The Constitution's words are very clear: federal courts can hear 'controversies between a State and citizens of another State.' When Georgia agreed to join the United States by signing the Constitution, it agreed to this rule and gave up its power to be immune from this type of lawsuit. In America, the real power belongs to 'the People,' not state governments, and the people created the courts to make sure everyone gets justice, even if it's against a state.

I think a state can be taken to court because when states join the country, they agree to follow common rules. This is important because it makes sure that everyone is treated fairly and that no one is above the law.

I agree with the main decision but want to add that it is important to have rules that check state power because this balance keeps things fair for everyone. My view is a bit different because I focus on having extra protections to stop any abuse of power.

I agree with the overall decision but think that states should also be held to account when they affect people from other states because old rules show that fairness means everyone follows the same laws. My view is slightly different as I lean more on historical ideas of fairness.

I agree with the final decision but insist that every state must be treated equally in court because the rules require fair treatment for everyone. This is different from the majority because I focus more on making sure no state gets extra protection that could stop a fair trial.

I disagree with the main decision because I think a state should have more protection from being sued by people from other states. I believe this matters because the original rules were meant to keep states safe and independent, and that idea is why my view is different from the main opinion.

—the Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction over a suit brought by a citizen of South Carolina against the State of Georgia.

—had allowed federal subject matter jurisdiction over a suit against a state by a citizen of another state.

—embraced the right of a citizen of one State to enforce his claims by suit directly against another State, a State could not, as the holder of the legal title, champion for its citizens a right for the prosecution of which a particular remedy had been provided by the Constitution.

—the jurisdictional heads of Article III superseded the sovereign immunity that the States possessed before entering the Union.

—held that a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state or by a foreign country.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, explained in 1793 that the United States "had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the laws of nations."

—the judicial power of the Union was extended to'cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, because, as the seas are the joint property of nations, whose rights and privileges thereto are regulated by the laws of nations and treaties, such cases necessarily belong to national jurisdiction.'

—the constitution intended to confine to courts created by congress; in other words, that such power extends only to the trial and determination of'cases' in courts of record, and that congress is still at liberty to authorize the judicial officers of the several states to exercise such power as is ordinarily given to officers of courts not of record,—such, for instance, as the power to …

This category also includes one instance of a Supreme Court opinion that purported to invoke a "prayer

Justice Iredell was to make the same observation in his Chisholm dissent, commenting that "[t] he United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: Each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved."

No. A state cannot be sued by an individual citizen of another state without its consent. The grant of judicial power in Article III is not self-executing; it requires a legislative act by Congress to prescribe the method of proceeding. The Judiciary Act of 1789 does not create a new cause of action against a state but refers the courts to pre-existing 'principles and usages of law,' which means the common law. Under the common law inherited from England, the sovereign cannot be subjected to a compulsory suit, and claims are only permitted through a 'petition of right,' which is a matter of grace, not a legal right. States retain all aspects of their original sovereignty not expressly delegated to the federal government, including this immunity from suit.

Yes. The Constitution's text explicitly extends judicial power to controversies between a state and citizens of another state. The order of the parties in the clause is irrelevant. The Constitution also grants jurisdiction over controversies 'between two or more States,' which necessarily implies that a state can be a defendant. By ratifying the Constitution, the states agreed to be subject to the judicial power of the United States in the enumerated cases and, in that respect, waived their traditional sovereign immunity. The potential difficulty in enforcing a judgment against a state is not a valid reason to decline jurisdiction clearly conferred by the Constitution.

Yes. Sovereignty in the United States resides not in the state governments, but in 'the People of the United States,' who ordained the Constitution to form a nation and bind the states. European feudal concepts of sovereign immunity, based on the divine right of kings, are antithetical to a republic founded on popular sovereignty. A state is an artificial entity created for the benefit of the people and cannot claim an exemption from justice. The explicit language of Article III, extending judicial power to 'controversies between a state and citizens of another state,' and the Constitution's stated purpose 'to establish Justice' both confirm that states are amenable to suit.

Yes. The language of Article III, Section 2 is plain and without exception, extending judicial power to 'controversies between a State and citizens of another State.' If the framers had intended to exclude cases where a state was a defendant, they would have explicitly done so. The argument based on state sovereignty is unpersuasive because states already surrendered many essential attributes of sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution. The remedy must be reciprocal; if a state can sue a citizen from another state in federal court, that citizen must also have the right to sue the state.

Yes. By being a party to the national compact—the Constitution—Georgia has consented to be suable by individual citizens of another state. At the Revolution, sovereignty devolved from the British Crown to the people of the nation, who are the true sovereigns. The Constitution, established by the people, was designed 'to establish justice,' which required creating a national tribunal to peacefully resolve disputes that could otherwise cause animosity between states. The language of Article III is clear and was intended to provide a forum for claims by individuals against states, ensuring that justice is not dependent on the will of the defendant state.

I hold that the State is subject to judicial process because its entry into the federal compact imposes reciprocal obligations under the Constitution. In my view, the duty of ensuring that legal disputes affecting individual rights are resolved fairly cannot be ignored because the Framers intended judicial review to act as a check on state actions that might otherwise undermine the rule of law.

I concur with the majority’s conclusion; however, I emphasize that the extension of judicial power to disputes involving state actions is justified because it preserves a crucial balance between state sovereignty and individual accountability. My reasoning differs from the majority because I stress that clearly defined safeguards must be in place to prevent federal overreach while still ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected.

I join the majority judgment; however, my concurrence rests on a broader interpretation of state liability because historical common law principles indicate that once a state becomes part of the national union, its immunity cannot be absolute when individual rights are at stake. My view diverges from the majority because I firmly believe that equal accountability must apply to all states, ensuring fair judicial oversight across state lines.

I concur with the judgment, yet I emphasize that equal protection under the law demands that even sovereign states remain subject to judicial review in matters affecting citizen rights. I reach this conclusion because the Constitution guarantees fairness for all, and my reasoning diverges from the majority by placing greater weight on the principle of equal treatment across state lines.

I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that the constitutional protection of state sovereignty should extend further than the majority’s interpretation permits. In my view, a State should enjoy broader immunity from lawsuits brought by citizens of other states because the historical and constitutional tradition of sovereign immunity is essential to preserving state independence. My dissent differs from the majority because I contend that tilting judicial power against state sovereignty threatens the balance originally intended by our constitutional heritage.

Chisholm v. Georgia

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot