Chisholm v. Georgia
The Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state, even though Georgia insisted its status as a sovereign state shielded it from being sued without its permission.
Four justices, writing separately, held that the Constitution's grant of judicial power over 'controversies between a State and citizens of another State' applied whether the state was suing or being sued, while one justice dissented, arguing no such suit could be maintained without a specific law from Congress authorizing it.
How it got here: Chisholm filed suit directly in the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction; Georgia refused to appear, prompting the Attorney General's motion for a conditional default judgment.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Alexander Chisholm, acting as executor for a deceased South Carolina merchant, sued the State of Georgia to recover payment for goods the merchant had supplied to Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Georgia refused to appear in court, arguing that as a sovereign state it could not be forced to answer a lawsuit brought by a private citizen of another state without its own consent.
The question before the Court
Could a private citizen from one state sue another state directly in the Supreme Court without that state's consent?
Why it matters
The ruling meant ordinary citizens with financial claims against a state government could drag that state into federal court, a possibility state governments found alarming. The backlash was so strong that it led directly to the Eleventh Amendment, which stripped federal courts of this kind of jurisdiction over states being sued by out-of-state citizens.
What changes now
The Court ordered Georgia to file an appearance or show cause by the next term, or else face a default judgment and a jury inquiry into damages. This decision proved deeply controversial: state governments feared being sued nationwide over Revolutionary War debts, and the backlash led Congress and the states to adopt the Eleventh Amendment, which later stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over this type of suit and effectively erased this ruling's practical effect.
What this does not decide
The decision addressed only whether a state could be sued by an out-of-state citizen under Article III and the Judiciary Act; it did not resolve every type of claim against a state. Justice Jay himself cautioned that suability might not extend to every demand, giving as an example wartime bills of credit issued on the state's own faith before the Constitution existed.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Iredell
Justice Iredell argued that no lawsuit against a state could proceed without a specific law from Congress creating the remedy and procedure, because courts only get their authority to act from legislation, not directly from the Constitution's general grant of judicial power. He found that existing common-law remedies against a sovereign, like England's petition process, did not fit an assumpfit (contract) suit, and Congress had passed no new remedy for suits against states. He concluded the action could not legally be maintained, though he left open whether Congress could authorize such suits by statute.
Concurrence — Justice Blair
Justice Blair concluded that the Constitution's extension of judicial power to controversies 'between a State and citizens of another State' plainly covers suits where a state is the defendant, not just the plaintiff, since the same controversy exists regardless of which party is named first. He also rejected the argument that the absence of an enforcement mechanism against states defeated jurisdiction, reasoning that difficulty in execution does not erase a court's duty to hear a case.
Concurrence — Justice Wilson
Justice Wilson grounded his opinion in a broader theory of popular sovereignty, arguing that the people of the United States, not the states themselves, are the ultimate sovereign, and that the people could and did subject the states to national judicial power when they ratified the Constitution. He emphasized that the Constitution's text directly and explicitly extends judicial power to controversies between a state and citizens of another state, without needing any extra deduction.
Concurrence — Justice Cushing
Justice Cushing focused closely on the constitutional text, reasoning that if a state can sue a citizen of another state under the same clause, fairness and the plain words of the Constitution require that a citizen be equally able to sue a state. He also concluded that an action of assumpsit could lie against a state so long as a state is capable of making contracts, and found the method of serving notice on Georgia's governor and attorney general proper.
Concurrence — Justice Jay
Chief Justice Jay reasoned that Georgia's sovereignty, unlike a feudal monarch's, rests with 'the people' rather than a single ruler, so nothing about state sovereignty makes a state immune from suit by a fellow citizen in a common national court. He worked through the Constitution's declared purposes, especially 'to establish justice,' concluding that citizens and states must have reciprocal rights to sue one another, while cautioning that suability might not cover every possible claim against a state.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Several justices began by asking whether the newly ratified Constitution could give federal courts power over states at all, concluding that the people who ratified the Constitution held ultimate sovereignty and could subject states to federal judicial power if they chose to.
- They then turned to the actual text of Article III, which extends judicial power to 'controversies between a State and citizens of another State.' The justices reasoned that this phrase draws no distinction between a state suing and a state being sued, so it covers both.
- They supported this reading by pointing to a companion clause covering suits between two states, where one state must necessarily be the defendant, showing that the Constitution's framers were comfortable making states answerable in court.
- Justice Iredell dissented, applying a different starting point: he reasoned that any lawsuit against a state must rest on a specific law from Congress spelling out the remedy and procedure, similar to how English law required a formal petition process to sue the Crown.
- Iredell concluded that because Congress had not passed any law creating a specific remedy for suits against states, and existing common-law procedures for suing a sovereign did not fit an assumpsit (contract) claim, no such suit could yet be maintained, regardless of what the Constitution might permit in theory.
- The majority of justices rejected that reasoning, holding that the Constitution's text was clear enough on its own to establish jurisdiction, so Georgia was required to appear and answer or risk a default judgment.