Supreme Court of the United States · 1793 · Constitutional Law
2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)
Updated
Constitutional LawJudicial PowerState Sovereign ImmunityArticle IIIstate suabilityoriginal jurisdictioncontroversies between a State and citizens of another StateSupreme Court
Facts
The plaintiff, a citizen of another State, brought an action of assumpsit against the State of Georgia in the Supreme Court. Georgia did not appear, asserting through its refusal that, as a sovereign State, it was not liable to suit by an individual citizen. The Attorney General moved for an order requiring Georgia to appear after notice or face default proceedings. The legal dispute centered on whether Article III permitted such a suit against a State.
Issue
Does the Constitution permit a citizen of one State to sue another State in the Supreme Court, so that Georgia may be required to appear as a defendant in an action brought by an individual citizen of another State? More specifically, does the Article III grant of judicial power over controversies between a State and citizens of another State include cases where the State is the defendant?
Rule
Under Article III, the judicial power of the United States extends to controversies between a State and citizens of another State, and that grant includes suits brought against a State by such citizens. Where a State is a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and the State's asserted sovereignty does not exempt it from the judicial power created by the Constitution.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Nora Patel, a citizen of Ohio, files an original civil action in the Supreme Court against the State of Colorado, alleging the state failed to pay for surveying services performed under a written agreement. Colorado refuses to appear, arguing that Article III's reference to controversies "between a State and citizens of another State" covers only suits brought by a state, not suits against one.
How should the Supreme Court rule on Colorado's jurisdictional objection under the majority view?
Explanation. The majority read Article III's reference to controversies between a state and citizens of another state to include either party posture, including suits against a state by a citizen of another state. It rejected the argument that the clause is limited to cases where the state is plaintiff. Because the controversy is between Colorado and an Ohio citizen, the constitutional grant applies.