Citation network
Alden Vs. Maine
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 31, 1999
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 706 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Alden Et Al. V. MaineSearch
-
No. 98-436. Argued March 31, 1999-Decided June 23,1999 Mter this Court decided, in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. FloridaSearch
-
Court held that Article III authorized a private citizen of another State to sue Georgia without its consent, Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
that States were required to surrender this power to Congress pursuant to the constitutional design. Blatchford v. NativeSearch
-
federal law merely because that law derives not from the State itself but from the national power. See, e. g., Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
otherwise within the enumerated powers' scope. Those decisions that have endorsed this contention, see, e. g., Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
R. Co. of Ala. Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184 , 190-194, have been overruled, see, e. g., College Savings Bank v. FloridaSearch
-
in sweeping terms, without reference to whether a suit was prosecuted in state or federal court. See, e. g., Briscoe v. BankSearch
-
The Court has said on many occasions that the States retain their immunity in their own courts, see, e. g., Beers v. ArkansasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
How. 527, 529, and has relied on that as a premise in its Eleventh Amendment rulings, see, e. g., Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
of Texas, Jan Graham of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Mark L. Earley of Virginia, Darrell V. McGrawSearch
-
and sought compensation and liquidated damages. While the suit was pending, this Court decided Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. FloridaSearch
-
of Seminole Tribe, the District Court dismissed petitioners' action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Mills v. MaineSearch
-
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision conflicts with the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, Jacoby v. ArkansasSearch
-
accord, Blatchford v. NativeSearch
-
assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. UnitedSearch
-
New York v. UnitedSearch
-
was well established in English law that the Crown could not be sued without consent in its own courts. See Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
cf. Nevada v. HallSearch
-
Article III authorized a private citizen of another State to sue the State of Georgia without its consent. Chisholm v. GeorgiaSearch
-
that the States had surrendered their immunity to suit. Maryland's decision to submit to process in Vanstophorst v. MarylandSearch
-
not go unnoticed by the Supreme Court, see Chisholm, 2 Dall., at 429-430 (Iredell, J., dissenting). In Oswald v. NewSearch
-
Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
accord, Edelman v. JordanSearch
-
Eleventh Amendment in holding that nonconsenting States are immune from suits brought by federal corporations, Smith v. ReevesSearch
-
U. S. 436 (1900), foreign nations, Principality of Monaco, supra, or Indian tribes, Blatchford v. NativeSearch
-
derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself. See, e. g., Idaho v. CoeurSearch
-
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSearch
-
Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition ... which it confirms.' Blatchford v. NativeSearch
-
Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775 , 779 (1991). That presupposition, first observed over a century ago in Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
Seminole Tribe, supra, at 54. 730 Accord, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. MetcalfSearch
-
with Em ployees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. DepartmentSearch
-
within the scope of the enumerated powers. Although some of our decisions had endorsed this contention, see Parden v. TerminalSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. UnionSearch
-
College Savings Bank v. FloridaSearch
-
together. See 1 F. Pollock & F. Maitland, History of English Law 518 (2d ed. 1909), quoted in Nevada v. HallSearch
-
statements in some of our cases suggesting that the Eleventh Amendment is inapplicable in state courts. See Hilton v. SouthSearch
-
Will v. MichiganSearch
-
business after the statute's enactment impliedly waived their sovereign immunity from such suits. See Par den v. TerminalSearch
-
waiver and consent. Although later decisions have undermined the basis of Parden's reasoning, see, e. g., Welch v. TexasSearch
-
Martin v. Hunter'sSearch
-
see also City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
own courts which cannot be abrogated by Congress. Petitioners seek support in two additional decisions. In Reich v. CollinsSearch
-
see also Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNarySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial