Northern Ins. Co. of NY v. Chatham County
164 L. Ed. 2d 367, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3449, 547 U.S. 189 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A political subdivision of a state, such as a county, that does not qualify as an 'arm of the State' for Eleventh Amendment purposes is not entitled to assert a common law or 'residual' sovereign immunity defense in a federal lawsuit, including one brought in admiralty.
Facts:
- Chatham County, Georgia, owned, operated, and maintained the Causton Bluff Bridge, a drawbridge over the Wilmington River.
- On October 6, 2002, James Ludwig requested the bridge be raised to allow his boat to pass.
- While Ludwig's boat was passing, the drawbridge malfunctioned, causing a portion to fall and collide with the boat.
- The collision resulted in Mr. and Mrs. Ludwig incurring damages exceeding $130,000.
- Northern Insurance Company of New York, the Ludwigs' insurer, paid their claim in accordance with their policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Northern Insurance Company of New York sued Chatham County in admiralty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
- The County filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred by sovereign immunity.
- The District Court granted the County's motion for summary judgment.
- Northern, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that a 'residual immunity' protected the County from suit.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Northern's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment.
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 a county that does not qualify as an 'arm of the State' for Eleventh Amendment immunity purposes nevertheless possess a separate, 'residual' sovereign immunity that bars it from being sued in an admiralty case?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. A political subdivision of a state that is not an arm of the state is not entitled to sovereign immunity. The Court reasoned that sovereign immunity is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty states possessed before the ratification of the Constitution. This immunity, which is not derived from the Eleventh Amendment but from the constitutional structure, extends only to the States themselves and entities properly considered 'arms of the State.' The Court has consistently refused to extend this immunity to counties, municipalities, or other political subdivisions, even when they exercise a 'slice of state power.' The County's argument for a separate 'residual' immunity is unfounded, as that concept refers to the sovereignty retained by the States, not a distinct immunity for their subdivisions. Because the County conceded it was not an 'arm of the State,' it is not entitled to immunity. Furthermore, there is no distinct form of sovereign immunity for admiralty cases; general sovereign immunity principles apply, and precedent establishes that municipal corporations are subject to suit in admiralty.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision clarifies that sovereign immunity for state-related entities is an all-or-nothing proposition. The Court decisively rejected the concept of a 'residual' or common-law sovereign immunity for political subdivisions, eliminating a theory that some lower courts had adopted. The ruling establishes a single, uniform test: an entity is either an 'arm of the State' entitled to immunity, or it is not and is subject to suit in federal court. This holding reinforces the vulnerability of counties and municipalities to federal lawsuits and prevents them from creating new immunity defenses outside the established 'arm of the State' framework, thereby promoting uniformity and predictability in federal litigation against local governments.
