Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawState Sovereign ImmunityAdministrative AdjudicationFederalismEleventh Amendmentstate sovereign immunityadministrative lawFederal Maritime Commission
Facts
South Carolina Maritime Services repeatedly sought permission from the South Carolina State Ports Authority to berth a cruise ship in Charleston, but the Authority denied the requests under its policy against vessels whose primary purpose was gambling. Maritime Services filed a complaint with the FMC alleging the Authority discriminatorily provided berthing space to other cruise vessels and thereby violated the Shipping Act. The complaint sought injunctive relief, reparations, attorneys' fees, and cease-and-desist relief. The Ports Authority asserted that, as an arm of South Carolina, it was immune from a private party's FMC complaint.
Issue
Does state sovereign immunity preclude the Federal Maritime Commission from adjudicating a private party's Shipping Act complaint against a nonconsenting state-run port? More broadly, does sovereign immunity extend beyond Article III courts to federal administrative adjudications that function like civil litigation?
Rule
State sovereign immunity, as embedded in the constitutional structure and not limited to the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment, bars federal administrative adjudications initiated by private parties against nonconsenting States when the proceedings are adjudicative in nature and closely resemble civil litigation. The bar applies regardless of the form of relief sought.
🔒
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.
Lakeshore Freight Lines, a private carrier based in Milwaukee, files a complaint with the Federal Inland Shipping Board against the Wisconsin River Port Authority, an arm of Wisconsin. The agency process requires a complaint, answer, discovery, an evidentiary hearing before an ALJ, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and permits reparations and attorney's fees.
Wisconsin refuses to consent and moves to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds. What is the best answer?
Explanation. The majority held that state sovereign immunity, grounded in the constitutional structure and not limited to the Eleventh Amendment's text, bars a federal agency from adjudicating a private party's complaint against a nonconsenting State when the proceeding closely resembles civil litigation. The described agency process mirrors a lawsuit through pleadings, discovery, an impartial adjudicator, and available reparations, so the State cannot be compelled to defend there. (Derived from Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (n.d.).)