Home > Journals > WMLR > Vol. 65 (2023-2024) > Iss. 3 (2024)
William & Mary Law Review
Abstract
Since the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting statutes seeking to override state sovereign immunity. In reviewing these acts, the Court established that Congress may abrogate immunity when exercising its powers to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, but not when exercising its Article I powers. This distinction is consistent with the original public meaning of the constitutional text understood in historical context. Recently, in a surprising turnabout, the Court abandoned this established paradigm by finding that the States agreed to an implied “structural waiver” of their sovereign immunity in the “plan of the Convention” whenever such immunity would “thwart” or “frustrate” the purpose underlying a congressional power that is “complete in itself.” The Court’s new purposive approach to state sovereign immunity is incompatible with the Constitution because it gives courts open-ended discretion to alter the federal-state balance established by the instrument. As Alexander Hamilton explained, because the Constitution “aims only at a partial union or consolidation,” “the whole tenor of the instrument” requires adherence to “the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor.” Under this rule, the “plan of the Convention”—properly understood— divested the States of their sovereign rights only when it did so clearly and expressly or by unavoidable implication. By relying on a strongly purposive methodology to find implied structural waivers of state sovereign immunity, the Court’s new approach disregards this fundamental rule and thus the Constitution itself.