Amend. 10.-Reserved State Powers. repugnancy. Such a power exists in the United States by virtue of an express grant for the purpose, among other things, of paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare; and it exists in the States for the support of their own governments, because they possessed the power without restriction before the Federal Constitution was adopted, and still retain it, except so far as the right is prohibited or restricted by that instrument. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 428. Limited by Grants of Federal Power The power of a State to tax its own citizens or their property within its territory can not be used so as to obstruct the free course of the power given to Congress. It can not reach and restrain the action of the National Government within its proper sphere. It can not reach the administration of justice in the courts of the Union or the collection of the taxes of the United States or restrain the operation of any law which Congress may constitutionally pass. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 448. Taxation by Congress of Municipal Revenue The right of the States to administer their own affairs through their legislative, executive, and judicial departments, in their own manner through their own agencies, is conceded by the uniform decisions of this court and by the practice of the Federal Government from its organization. This carries with it an exemption of those agencies and instruments from the taxing power of the Federal Government. U. S. v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 17 Wall. 327. Matters Relating to State Courts The several State legislatures retain all the powers of legislation, delegated to them by the State constitutions, which are not expressly taken away by the Federal Constitution. The establishment of courts of justice, the appointment of judges, and the making of regulations for the administration of justice, within each State according to its laws, on all subjects not intrusted to the Federal Government, is the peculiar and exclusive province and duty of the State legislatures. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 388. Shores of, and Soils Under, Navigable Waters The shores of the navigable waters, and the soils under them, were not granted to the United States in the Constitution, but were reserved to the States, respectively. Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1- -44 AMENDMENT 11.-SUITS AGAINST STATES. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Leading Cases In Hans v. Louisiana (134 U. S. 11) the court said: This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. It did not, in terms, prohibit suits by individuals against the States, but declared that the Constitution should not be construed to import any power to authorize the bringing of such suits. In Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheat. 406) it was held: That its motive was not to maintain the sovereignty of a State from the degradation supposed to attend a compulsory appearance before the tribunal of the Nation, may be inferred from the terms of the amendment. It does not comprehend controversies between two or more States, or between a State and a foreign State. The jurisdiction of the court still extends to these cases; and in these a State may still be sued. In Poindexter v. Greenhow (114 U. S. 287) the court said: It is true that the question whether a suit is within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment is not always determined by reference to the nominal parties on the record. In connection with that case see In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. McNeill v. Southern R. Co., 202 U. S. 543. Murray v. Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151. Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436. In Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line (200 U. S. 283) the following maxims were established: 1. In view of the prohibitions of the eleventh amendment, a State without its consent may not be sued by an individual in a circuit court of the United States. 2. A suit against State officers to enjoin them from enforcing a tax alleged to be in violation of the Constitution is not a suit against a State within the prohibition of this amendment. 1 This amendment was passed in consequence of the decision of Chisholm v. Georgia (2 Dall. 419), holding that a State could be sued by a citizen of another State in assumpsit. For ratification, see p. 27. See also Art. III, sec. 2, pp. 433 and 459. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. Amend. 11. 3. A suit against individuals to prevent them as officers of a State from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff is not a suit against the State within the meaning of this amendment. 4. Although a State may not be sued without its consent, the immunity is a privilege which may be waived. Hence, when a State voluntarily becomes a party to a cause and submits its rights for judicial determination it will be bound thereby and can not escape the result of its own voluntary act by invoking the prohibitions of this amendment. Against One of the United States Neither public corporations nor political subdivisions are clothed with the immunity from suit which belongs to the State alone by virtue of its sovereignty. Hopkins v. Clemson College, 221 U. S. 636. Suits by Citizens of Same State A suit against a State by one of its own citizens, the State not having consented to be sued, is unknown to and forbidden by the law, as much so as suits against a State by citizens of another State of the Union, or by citizens and subjects of foreign States. Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 524. Suits Between States 1 While this amendment took from the Supreme Court all jurisdiction of all controversies between individuals and States, it left its exercise over those between States as free as it had been before. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 781. Virginia v. West Virginia, 206 U. S. 290; 246 U. S. 565. Unless the State prosecuted consents, this amendment prohibits the court from entertaining jurisdiction of a cause in which one State seeks relief against another State on behalf of its citizens, in a matter in which the State prosecuting has no interest of its own. One State can not create a controversy with another State, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution, by assuming the prosecution of debts owing by the other State to its citizens. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76. But where a State has become absolute owner of obligations of another State, it may sue thereon in the Supreme Court of the United States. South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286. 1 See also Art. III, sec. 2, p. 421, and "Cases between States," p. 458. Amend. 11. This amendment does not comprehend controversies between two or more States or between a State of the Union and a foreign State. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 406. Suits in Admiralty A mere personal suit against a State to recover proceeds in its possession can not be commenced in the United States Supreme Court. Admiralty process can not issue when it is not a case where the property is in custody of a court of admiralty, or brought within its jurisdiction, and in the possession of any private person. Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110; 7 Pet. 627. Admiralty suits in personam can not be brought against a State without its consent, by an individual, whether a citizen of a State or not. Ex parte State of New York, No. 1, 256 U. S. 490. Equal Protection of the Laws This amendment does not involve any denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws as contemplated in the fourteenth amendment. Alabama v. Wolffe, 18 Fed. 836. When a State Holds Corporation Stock In a suit against a corporation an objection that a State is a member of the corporation can not be sustained. If the State be not necessarily defendant, though its interest may be affected by the decision, the courts of the United States are bound to exercise jurisdiction. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 550. U. S. Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904. When the State becomes the sole proprietor of the stock of a bank it can not be successfully contended that a suit against the bank for money had and received, instituted to recover the amount of a deposit, is one against a sovereign State. Kentucky Bank v. Wister, 2 Pet. 322. Suits on State Contracts Those who deal in bonds and obligations of a sovereign State are aware that they must rely altogether on the sense of justice and good faith of the State, and the courts of the United States are expressly prohibited from exercising jurisdiction. Washington Bank v. Arkansas, 20 How. 530. Amend. 11. Suits Against Receivers of State Assets A suit against the receivers appointed under the South Carolina statute providing for the winding up of the State dispensary system was held to be a suit against the State. Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151. Carolina Glass Co. v. South Carolina, 240 U. S. 305. See also Fleischman Co. v. Murray, 161 Fed. 152. Suit for Money in the State Treasury A suit on a demand for money actually in the State treasury, the possession of which was acquired by means which it was lawful for the State to exercise, can not be maintained under this amendment. Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110; 7 Pet. 627. Commenced or Prosecuted The defendant who removes a judgment rendered against him by a State court into the Federal Supreme Court, for the purpose of reexamining the question whether that judgment be in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not commence or prosecute a suit against the State. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 412. State as a Nominal or Real Party That the State is not named as a party defendant is not conclusive of the question whether the State is a party. Whether it is an actual party within the meaning of this amendment must be determined by a consideration of the nature of the case as presented on the whole record. In re Ayers (123 U. S. 492) in which the court said: It must be regarded as a settled doctrine of this court, established by its recent decisions, that the question whether a suit is within the prohibition of the eleventh amendment is not always determined by reference to the nominal parties on the record. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270, 287. This, it is true, is not in harmony with what was said by Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. U. S. Bank (9 Wheat. 738). In his opinion in that case he said: It may, we think, be laid down as a rule which admits of no exception, that in all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party it is the party named in the record (p. 857). But in Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dey (35 Fed. 869) the court said: But recent cases set aside that rule, and establish a more reasonable one-that that amendment covers not only suits brought against the State by name, but those against its officers, agents, and representatives, where the State, though not named as defendant, is the real party against which relief is asked, and the judgment will operate. See also In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164. Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Jones, 105 Fed. 459. |