Isabella Carter
The Eleventh Amendment reflects a broad principle of sovereign immunity, protecting states from being sued in federal court without their consent. However, federal courts can assume jurisdiction over a state if the state has waived its immunity or if Congress has unequivocally abrogated the state's immunity. For example, Congress has done so with respect to Title VI and related statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, which allow citizens to sue for violations of civil rights laws. Section 1983 of the federal statutory cause of action enables citizens to sue government officials or entities for the deprivation of constitutional rights. This section outlines that any person who, under the color of law, subjects a citizen to the deprivation of their constitutional rights is liable to the injured party.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Federal statutory cause of action that allows citizens to sue a government officer or entity | Section 1983 |
| Basis for suing | Deprivation of federal constitutional rights |
| Requirements for recovering damages against a government official | Plaintiff must establish that a constitutional right exists, that the defendant violated that right under state law, and that the defendant's acts caused the plaintiff's injury |
| Immunity | The Eleventh Amendment reflects a broad principle of sovereign immunity, protecting a state from being sued in federal court without its consent |
| Exceptions to immunity | A state may waive its immunity in its own courts, or Congress may abrogate a state's immunity |
| Tort claims | The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity in certain cases of negligence or wrongful acts by government employees |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Suing a government officer or entity for deprivation of federal constitutional rights
In the United States, Section 1983 is the federal statutory cause of action that allows citizens to sue a government officer or entity for deprivation of federal constitutional rights. Section 1983 states that:
> [e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
To recover damages against a government official under Section 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a constitutional right exists, that the defendant violated that right under colour of state law, and that the defendant's acts proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.
The Eleventh Amendment reflects a broad principle of sovereign immunity, protecting a state from being sued in federal court without its consent. However, federal courts have jurisdiction over a state if the state has waived its immunity or if Congress has abrogated the state's immunity. For example, in the case of Rhodes, the Court held that plaintiffs could sue the governor and other state officials, alleging deprivation of federal rights under colour of state law.
The defence of qualified immunity for government entities and their insurance carriers in constitutional rights violation cases has also come under scrutiny, with the US Supreme Court ruling against defendant officials in a case involving a prisoner punished by being tied to a hitching post.
In addition, the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics established that individuals could sue federal officers for violating their constitutional rights. Following Bivens, the Supreme Court ruled in two other cases that people could sue for constitutional violations by federal officers. However, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have made it more difficult for victims to bring cases against federal officers, with lower federal courts considering as a threshold issue whether a case can go forward without addressing the merits of the plaintiff's constitutional claims.
Trump's Constitution: A Vision for America's Future?
You may want to see also
Sovereign immunity
While sovereign immunity typically applies to the federal government and state governments, it does not extend to municipalities. Additionally, federal and state governments can waive their sovereign immunity in whole or in part. For example, the Federal Tort Claims Act waived federal immunity for various tort claims. Similarly, Congress has the power to grant or withhold immunity from suit for government corporations and has done so through statutes such as the Administrative Procedure Act.
The scope of sovereign immunity and its exceptions have been the subject of several court cases. For instance, in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), the Supreme Court initially held that a citizen of one state could sue another state, but this ruling was later superseded by the Eleventh Amendment. In United States v. Clarke (1834), Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed the principle of sovereign immunity, stating that the United States cannot be sued without the authorization of an act of Congress.
In recent times, the Supreme Court has addressed sovereign immunity in cases involving lower-level government officials. For example, in the 2013 case involving Lise Thibault, a former Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, the Court rejected her claim of royal immunity for charges of misappropriation of public funds. The Court distinguished between the monarch and a lieutenant governor, stating that royal immunity only applies to official state functions and not personal actions.
Outside of the United States, sovereign immunity is also recognized in other countries, such as China. China has consistently asserted absolute sovereign immunity for its state and state-owned companies, claiming it as a basic principle of international law. However, in 2023, China's national legislature passed the Foreign State Immunity Law, shifting its sovereign immunity regime to a restrictive one.
Newton's Impact on the Constitution's Structure
You may want to see also
Suing a state in federal court
The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases involving citizens of one state suing another state in federal court. The text of the Amendment 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."
The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this Amendment to bar private citizens from filing lawsuits against a state unless the state consents to the lawsuit. This includes lawsuits filed by citizens of their own state and citizens from one state suing a different state. The Amendment also bars lawsuits against state officials, such as a governor.
However, there are several exceptions to the general rule. With regard to suing a state or one of its agencies, the following exceptions apply:
- If the state consents to the lawsuit, the court can consider the case. In other words, states can waive their sovereign immunity.
- Congress can abrogate a state's sovereign immunity by using its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Congress has unequivocally done so with respect to Title VI and related statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, which abrogate states' immunity from suit for violations of nondiscrimination statutes.
- If the plaintiff requests prospective injunctive relief, the federal court can adjudicate it.
With regard to suing state officers in federal court, the following exceptions apply:
- If the state official consents to the lawsuit, the court can consider the case. State officials can also waive their immunity.
- If Congress passes a law or act authorizing the lawsuit, it can go forward.
- If the state official was willfully negligent or acted outside the scope of their official duties, the official generally does not receive immunity.
It's important to note that the Eleventh Amendment's plain language does not bar a private citizen from suing their own state in federal court. Additionally, the Amendment's sovereign immunity applies to states and not their subdivisions or establishments. Therefore, the Supreme Court has consistently refused to extend Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to counties, cities, or towns, even though they exercise a "slice of state power."
The Constitution: Liberty and Freedom for Americans
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Qualified immunity
The Supreme Court introduced qualified immunity in 1967 in Pierson v. Ray, a case litigated during the civil rights movement. The Court justified it as a means of protecting government officials from financial burdens when acting in good faith in legally murky areas. However, critics argue that it has become a tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights.
In practice, this often means that unless there is a case with nearly identical facts on record, officials can violate a person's rights without being held personally responsible. This has led to the dismissal of many civil rights cases against public officials.
Crafting the Constitution: A Collaborative Effort
You may want to see also
Tort claims against the US Department of State
In the United States, Section 1983 of the federal statute is what allows citizens to sue government officers or entities for the deprivation of federal constitutional rights. To recover damages against a government official under Section 1983, a plaintiff must establish that a constitutional right exists, that the defendant violated that right under the colour of state law, and that the defendant's acts caused the plaintiff's injury.
Now, for tort claims against the US Department of State, the Office of International Claims and Investment Disputes, within the Office of the Legal Adviser, is responsible for processing such claims. The Office handles claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity in certain cases. This means that in instances where an employee of the US government has committed a negligent or wrongful act or omission within the scope of their employment, immunity will not protect them.
However, the FTCA expressly bars claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred. Claims under the FTCA must be presented in writing within 2 years of accrual. Claimants should complete a Standard Form 95, Claim for Damage, Injury or Death, and submit the form to the Office of the Legal Adviser.
The Secretary of State also has discretionary authority to pay tort claims in the manner authorized by the FTCA when such claims arise in foreign countries in connection with Department of State operations abroad. Claimants who believe they have suffered personal injury or property damage due to an act or omission of a Department of State employee should consult the regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice, which apply to the handling of administrative claims under the FTCA.
Politics' Influence on Constitutional Interpretation
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A constitutional tort is a violation of constitutional rights by a government official or entity.
Section 1983 is the federal statutory cause of action that allows citizens to sue government officials or entities for violations of their constitutional rights.
Section 1983 states that "every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
A plaintiff must establish that a constitutional right exists, that the defendant violated that right under color of state law, and that the defendant's acts proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.
Yes, the Eleventh Amendment reflects a broad principle of sovereign immunity, which protects states from being sued in federal court without their consent. However, there are exceptions to this immunity, such as when a state has waived its immunity or when Congress has unequivocally abrogated a state's immunity.
