The intersection of dissent and constitutional change has been illustrated vividly through a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case and its aftermath, detailed in an article by Anastasia Boden on SCOTUSblog. This historical narrative revolves around the case of Chisholm v. Georgia and the subsequent ramifications that led directly to the Eleventh Amendment.
Following the American Revolutionary War, financial obligations left many states burdened with debt. This financial strain is exemplified by Robert Farquhar, a businessman who outfitted a Georgia regiment with supplies on credit. However, Georgia’s reluctance to settle these debts after the war sparked a legal battle that led to the Supreme Court.
The case centered on whether a state could be sued by a citizen from another state. The Constitution’s Article III, Section 2, extended federal judicial power to “Controversies between a State and Citizens of another State.” The state of Georgia, citing sovereign immunity rooted in English common law, contested this interpretation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against Georgia, asserting that sovereignty resided with the American people and not solely with the states themselves.
However, Justice James Iredell’s dissent proved significant. Iredell maintained that sovereign immunity was inherent unless expressly surrendered by the states. He argued that without explicit Congressional legislation allowing for such lawsuits, federal courts lacked jurisdiction. This dissent resonated with state legislatures and influenced Congress to act swiftly; within a year, the Eleventh Amendment was proposed to negate the ruling. Ratified by February 1795, it barred federal jurisdiction over cases “against one of the United States by Citizens of another State.” This simultaneously affirmed and expanded Iredell’s perspective on state sovereignty.
The dynamics of sovereign immunity continue to evolve, raising questions about its current scope and application, reflecting ongoing debates about the locus of sovereignty—whether with individuals or their government. Two contemporary cases set to be heard by the Supreme Court, GEO Group v. Menocal and Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., illustrate these ongoing tensions (see more on SCOTUSblog’s dissent series).