Hans v. Louisiana
Encyclopedia
Hans v. Louisiana, , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court
determining that the Eleventh Amendment
prohibits the citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court
.
, Hans, was a citizen of the state of Louisiana
. Hans owned bonds
issued by the state, and was concerned that a recent change to the state constitution would render the bonds invalid. Hans filed a suit against the state in the United States District Court
, asserting that Louisiana was impairing the obligations of a contract, which was forbidden by Article I, Section 10
of the United States Constitution
.
Furthermore, the Court was well aware that nearly a century before the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
, , holding that states could be sued in federal courts by citizens of other states, had sparked negative reaction and two years later Congress and the states expressed their will in the Eleventh Amendment. That Amendment expressly forbade citizens of one state from suing another state, but said nothing about citizens suing their own state. Thus the Court was left to resolve the issue of whether such a suit was therefore allowed.
Joseph Bradley, writing for the Court, first examined the discussions surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. He noted that Alexander Hamilton
had written a passage in the Federalist Papers
, #81, assuring his audience that the Constitution would not remove the states' traditional immunity from lawsuits. The Court then examined similar language in statements made by James Madison
and John Marshall
in the Virginia convention
held to ratify the Constitution. Both asserted that the federal power to hear claims brought by a state against a citizen of another state would not apply in the reverse, hence that one state could not be sued in federal court by citizens of another.
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 consent
ed 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.
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.
(1908) determined that a citizen could sue a state official to prevent that official from carrying out a state policy that was deemed unconstitutional. Another suit found that the Fourteenth Amendment gave the Congress the power to abrogate
state immunity from suit to the extent that this was necessary to protect Constitutional rights.
In 1987, Welch v. Texas Department of Highways http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=432779 led to a 5-4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Antonin Scalia
casting a rare swing vote, "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment." Four justices upheld Hans, while Justice Antonin Scalia
concluded that Congress had assumed Hans when enacting the Jones Act
and the Federal Employer's Liability Act.
In the late 1990s, the Rehnquist court issued a series of decisions reinforcing state immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, starting with Seminole Tribe v. Florida
.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
determining that the Eleventh Amendment
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v...
prohibits the citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court
United States federal courts
The United States federal courts make up the judiciary branch of federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.-Categories:...
.
Facts
The plaintiffPlaintiff
A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court...
, Hans, was a citizen of the state of Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana is a state located in the southern region of the United States of America. Its capital is Baton Rouge and largest city is New Orleans. Louisiana is the only state in the U.S. with political subdivisions termed parishes, which are local governments equivalent to counties...
. Hans owned bonds
Bond (finance)
In finance, a bond is a debt security, in which the authorized issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay interest to use and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed maturity...
issued by the state, and was concerned that a recent change to the state constitution would render the bonds invalid. Hans filed a suit against the state in the United States District Court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
, asserting that Louisiana was impairing the obligations of a contract, which was forbidden by Article I, Section 10
Article One of the United States Constitution
Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. The Article establishes the powers of and limitations on the Congress, consisting of a House of Representatives composed of Representatives, with each state gaining or...
of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
.
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." The Court noted that the Constitution does not specifically provide for federal jurisdiction in suits between a citizen and a state, but Article III does give the federal courts jurisdiction over "all cases" arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Here, Hans was asserting a violation of the Constitution as his cause of action.Furthermore, the Court was well aware that nearly a century before the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 , is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Given its date, there is little available legal precedent...
, , holding that states could be sued in federal courts by citizens of other states, had sparked negative reaction and two years later Congress and the states expressed their will in the Eleventh Amendment. That Amendment expressly forbade citizens of one state from suing another state, but said nothing about citizens suing their own state. Thus the Court was left to resolve the issue of whether such a suit was therefore allowed.
Result
JusticeAssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States...
Joseph Bradley, writing for the Court, first examined the discussions surrounding the ratification of the Constitution. He noted that Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father, soldier, economist, political philosopher, one of America's first constitutional lawyers and the first United States Secretary of the Treasury...
had written a passage in the Federalist Papers
Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788...
, #81, assuring his audience that the Constitution would not remove the states' traditional immunity from lawsuits. The Court then examined similar language in statements made by James Madison
James Madison
James Madison, Jr. was an American statesman and political theorist. He was the fourth President of the United States and is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution” for being the primary author of the United States Constitution and at first an opponent of, and then a key author of the United...
and John Marshall
John Marshall
John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the United States whose court opinions helped lay the basis for American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court of the United States a coequal branch of government along with the legislative and executive branches...
in the Virginia convention
Virginia Ratifying Convention
The Virginia Ratifying Convention was a convention of 168 delegates from Virginia who met in 1788 to ratify or reject the United States Constitution, which had been drafted at the Philadelphia Convention the previous year.The Convention met and deliberated from June 2 through June 27 in Richmond...
held to ratify the Constitution. Both asserted that the federal power to hear claims brought by a state against a citizen of another state would not apply in the reverse, hence that one state could not be sued in federal court by citizens of another.
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 consent
Consent
Consent refers to the provision of approval or agreement, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration.- Types of consent :*Implied consent is a controversial form of consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person's actions and the facts and...
ed to be sued. Furthermore, the Judiciary Acts of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary...
and 1802
Judiciary Act of 1802
The United States Judiciary Act of 1802 was a Federal statute, enacted on April 29, 1802, to reorganize the federal court system. It restored some elements of the Judiciary Act of 1801, which had been adopted by the Federalist majority in the previous Congress, but was repealed by the...
had granted the federal courts jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility...
"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 HarlanJohn Marshall Harlan
John Marshall Harlan was a Kentucky lawyer and politician who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. He is most notable as the lone dissenter in the Civil Rights Cases , and Plessy v...
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
Ex parte YoungEx parte Young
Ex parte Young, , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.-Facts:...
(1908) determined that a citizen could sue a state official to prevent that official from carrying out a state policy that was deemed unconstitutional. Another suit found that the Fourteenth Amendment gave the Congress the power to abrogate
Abrogation doctrine
The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented ....
state immunity from suit to the extent that this was necessary to protect Constitutional rights.
In 1987, Welch v. Texas Department of Highways http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=432779 led to a 5-4 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
casting a rare swing vote, "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment." Four justices upheld Hans, while Justice Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
concluded that Congress had assumed Hans when enacting the Jones Act
Jones Act
The term Jones Act may refer to one of several federal laws in the United States:*The Jones Act was a 1916 statute sponsored by Representative William Atkinson Jones that provided the Philippine Islands a "more autonomous government" to prepare the territory for independence.*The Jones-Shafroth...
and the Federal Employer's Liability Act.
In the late 1990s, the Rehnquist court issued a series of decisions reinforcing state immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, starting with Seminole Tribe v. Florida
Seminole Tribe v. Florida
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment...
.