Hans v. Louisiana
134 U.S. 1 (1890)
Rule of Law:
The principle of state sovereign immunity bars a suit against a state in federal court by one of its own citizens without its consent, even when the cause of action arises under the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
- Hans, a citizen of Louisiana, was the owner of bonds issued by the State of Louisiana.
- The state had an obligation under the terms of the bonds to pay interest to the bondholders.
- Louisiana subsequently adopted a new state constitutional amendment in 1879.
- This new amendment had the effect of repudiating the state's obligation to pay the interest due on these bonds.
- Hans alleged that Louisiana's refusal to pay violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Procedural Posture:
- Hans filed a lawsuit against the State of Louisiana in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- The State of Louisiana filed an exception to the suit, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear a case brought against the state by one of its own citizens.
- The Circuit Court (a federal trial court) sustained the state's exception and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction.
- Hans, as plaintiff in error, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the principle of state sovereign immunity bar a citizen from suing their own state in federal court when the basis for the suit is a claim that arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bradley
Yes. The principle of state sovereign immunity bars a citizen from suing their own state in federal court without its consent. The Eleventh Amendment is not the exclusive source of this immunity; rather, it is an affirmation of a pre-existing and fundamental principle of sovereignty that was understood by the framers of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the shock and surprise following the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, which allowed a suit against a state by a citizen of another state, demonstrated that the original understanding was that states could not be sued by individuals. To allow a state to be sued by its own citizens in federal court while prohibiting suits by citizens of other states would create an anomalous and unintended result. The Court looked to the arguments of Hamilton, Madison, and Marshall, who disclaimed any intention to subject states to suits by individuals when defending the Constitution during ratification debates. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction under Article III does not abrogate this foundational aspect of state sovereignty.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes. A suit directly against a State by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends unless the State consents to be sued. I concur in the judgment on this ground alone. However, I do not agree with the majority's criticism of the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, as I believe that case was a sound interpretation of the Constitution as it existed prior to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded the doctrine of state sovereign immunity beyond the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment, which only bars suits against a state by citizens of other states or foreign nations. By grounding sovereign immunity in the original structure of the Constitution rather than solely in the amendment's text, the Court created a broad, constitutionally-based immunity for states from suits by their own citizens. This precedent has had a lasting impact, substantially limiting the power of federal courts to hear claims brought by individuals seeking to hold states accountable for violations of federal law. It established a major jurisdictional hurdle for plaintiffs suing states, a principle that continues to shape federalism and civil rights litigation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hans v. Louisiana (1890)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"