|
|
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes.
Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (December 2007) |
| Chisholm v. Georgia |
|
Supreme Court of the United States |
Argued February 5, 1793
Decided February 18, 1793
|
| Full case name: |
Alexander Chisholm, Executors v. Georgia |
|
| Citations: |
2 U.S. 419; 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419; 1 L. Ed. 440; 1793 U.S. LEXIS 249 |
|
|
| Prior history: |
Original action filed, U.S. Supreme Court, August, 1792 |
|
|
| Subsequent history: |
None on record |
|
|
| Holding |
| Article III, Section 2's grant of federal jurisdiction over suits "between a State and Citizens of another State" abrogated the States' sovereign immunity recognized at common law, thus allowing a private individual to hale a State into federal court. |
| Court membership |
Chief Justice: John Jay
Associate Justices: James Wilson, William Cushing, John Blair, James Iredell |
| Case opinions |
Seriatim opinion by: Cushing
Seriatim opinion by: Blair
Seriatim opinion by: Wilson
Seriatim opinion by: Jay
Dissent by: Iredell
|
| Laws applied |
| U.S. Const. art. III; Judiciary Act of 1789 |
| Superseded by |
| U.S. Const. amend. XI |
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)[1], is considered by many to be the first United States Supreme Court case of great significance and impact. Because of its early date, there is little legal precedent (particularly in American law) available.
Background of the case
In 1792 in South Carolina, Alexander Chisholm, the executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, attempted to sue the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over payments due him for goods that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. U.S. Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued the case for the plaintiff before the Court. The defendant, Georgia, refused to appear, claiming that as a "sovereign" a state did not have to appear in court to hear a suit against it to which it did not consent.
The Court's decision
The Court, in a 4–1 decision, found in favor of the plaintiff, with Chief Justice of the United States John Jay concurring with Justices Blair, Wilson, and Cushing, and Justice Iredell dissenting. (At the time, there was no one "majority" opinion; the Justices simply delivered their own opinions one by one, in order from the most junior to the most senior.) The Court argued that Article 3, Section 2, of the Constitution abrogated the States' sovereign immunity and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes between private citizens and States.
Subsequent developments
In 1795, largely as a result of Chisholm, the Eleventh Amendment was ratified, which removed federal jurisdiction in cases where citizens of one state or foreign countries attempt to sue another state. However, citizens of one state or foreign countries can still use the Federal courts if the state consents to be sued or if Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of Fourteenth Amendment remedial powers, abrogates the states' immunity from suit. See, e.g., Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976).
See also
Footnotes
- ^ 2 U.S. 419 (Full text of the decision at Findlaw.com)
References
- Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation, New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
- Jean Edward Smith, The Constitution And American Foreign Policy, St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1989.
External links
|
