Chisholm v. Georgia
 | |
| Chisholm v. Georgia | |
| Reference: 2 U.S. 419 | |
| Term: 1793 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: February 4, 1793 Decided: February 19, 1793 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Circuit Court for the District of Georgia overturned[1] | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice John Jay • John Blair • James Wilson • William Cushing | |
| Dissenting | |
| James Iredell | |
Chisholm v. Georgia is a case decided on February 18, 1793, by the United States Supreme Court that allowed citizens to sue state governments—a precedent later limited under the Eleventh Amendment. The case concerned the ability of citizens to sue states in court and whether states had sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Georgia, holding that states did not possess sovereign immunity against lawsuits and that U.S. citizens could sue state governments.[2]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision allowed citizens to sue state governments. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Jay argued that citizens, not state governments, were sovereign under the U.S. Constitution and that since a state could sue an individual or another state, it followed that individuals would also have the capacity to sue a state under Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment later limited this precedent, click here to read more.
Background
Georgia state commissioners Thomas Stone and Edward Davies agreed to purchase goods from Robert Farquhar, a South Carolina merchant, in 1777 to help Continental Army troops in Savannah during the Revolutionary War for $169,613. Farquhar died in 1784, but he never received payment from the State of Georgia for his merchandise. Alexander Chisholm, an executor of Farquhar's estate, filed suit against Georgia's state government in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia in a case known as Farquhar's Executor v. Georgia, requesting payment and damages. Georgia Governor Edward Telfair argued that Georgia was a sovereign state and that federal courts did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.[2][3]
The circuit court sided with Georgia and ruled in October 1791 that citizens of another state could not sue a state in circuit court.
Chisholm filed the case as Chisholm v. Georgia with the United States Supreme Court, claiming that federal courts had jurisdiction to decide the case and award the requested payment and damages. Oral arguments in the case were delayed from August 11, 1792, to February 4, 1793, because Georgia did not send representation to the court. Ultimately, Georgia did not send attorneys or representation to argue on behalf of the state.[2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on February 4, 1793. The case was decided on February 19, 1793.[2]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided 4-1 that Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution granted federal courts the authority to hear disputes between private citizens and the states.[2]
Opinions
At the time of the Chisholm decision, the Supreme Court did not deliver majority opinions or opinions of the court. Instead, each justice delivered an individual opinion seriatim. This section breaks down the opinions of Chief Justice John Jay and Justice James Iredell (the lone dissenter in the case).
Opinion of Chief Justice John Jay
Chief Justice John Jay argued that citizens, not states, were the primary sovereigns under the U.S. Constitution.
| “ | [T]he people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, 'We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform.[2][4] | ” |
Jay argued that the Constitution allowed states to sue other states, which demonstrated that the nature of state sovereignty did not necessarily grant states immunity from legal claims:[2]
| “ | There is at least one strong undeniable fact against this incompatibility, and that is this -- any one State in the Union may sue another State, in this Court, that is, all the people of one State may sue all the people of another State. It is plain then that a State may be sued, and hence it plainly follows that suability and State sovereignty are not incompatible. As one State may sue another State in this Court, it is plain that no degradation to a State is thought to accompany her appearance in this Court. It is not therefore to an appearance in this Court that the objection points. To what does it point? It points to an appearance at the suit of one or more citizens. But why it should be more incompatible that all the people of a State should be sued by one citizen than by one hundred thousand, I cannot perceive, the process in both cases being alike and the consequences of a judgment alike. Nor can I observe any greater inconveniences in the one case than in the other, except what may arise from the feelings of those who may regard a lesser number in an inferior light. But if any reliance be made on this inferiority as an objection, at least one half of its force is done away by this fact, viz., that it is conceded that a State may appear in this Court as plaintiff against a single citizen as defendant; and the truth is that the State of Georgia is at this moment prosecuting an action in this Court against two citizens of South Carolina.[2][4] | ” |
Jay said, given the first two points, Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution should be interpreted to permit citizens of states to sue the governments of other states since it did not explicitly forbid such actions:
| “ | This extension of power is remedial, because it is to settle controversies. It is therefore to be construed liberally. It is politic, wise, and good that not only the controversies in which a State is plaintiff, but also those in which a State is defendant, should be settled; both cases therefore are within the reason of the remedy, and ought to be so adjudged unless the obvious, plain, and literal sense of the words forbid it.[2][4] | ” |
Opinion of Justice James Iredell
Iredell argued that common law affirmed the sovereignty of each state and the immunity of all states from legal claims from citizens of other states in federal court.
| “ | The only principles of law, then, that can be regarded are those common to all the States. I know of none such which can affect this case but those that are derived from what is properly termed 'the common law,' a law which I presume is the groundwork of the laws in every State in the Union, and which I consider, so far as it is applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, and where no special act of legislation controls it, to be in force in each State as it existed in England (unaltered by any statute) at the time of the first settlement of the country. The statutes of England that are in force in America differ perhaps in all the States, and therefore it is probable the common law in each is in some respects different. But it is certain that, in regard to any common law principle which can influence the question before us, no alteration has been made by any statute which could occasion the least material difference, or have any partial effect. No other part of the common law of England, it appears to me, can have any reference to this subject but that part of it which prescribes remedies against the Crown. Every State in the Union, in every instance where its sovereignty has not been delegated to the United States, I consider to be as completely sovereign as the United States are in respect to the powers surrendered. The United States are sovereign as to all the powers of Government actually surrendered: each State in the Union is sovereign as to all the powers reserved. It must necessarily be so, because the United States have no claim to any authority but such as the States have surrendered to them. Of course, the part not surrendered must remain as it did before. The powers of the general Government, either of a legislative or Executive nature, or which particularly concerns treaties with foreign powers, do for the most part (if not wholly) affect individuals, and not States. They require no aid from any State authority. This is the great leading distinction between the old Articles of Confederation and the present Constitution. ... Now I presume it will not be denied that, in every State in the Union, previous to the adoption of the Constitution, the only common law principles in regard to suits that were in any manner admissible in respect to claims against the State were those which, in England, apply to claims against the Crown, there being certainly no other principles of the common law which, previous to the adoption of this Constitution could, in any manner or upon any colour, apply to the case of a claim against a State in its own courts, where it was solely and completely sovereign in respect to such cases at least. Whether that remedy was strictly applicable or not, still I apprehend there was no other.[2][4] | ” |
Aftermath
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
The year after the Chisholm decision on March 4, 1794, Congress passed the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which the states ratified on February 7, 1795. Senator Caleb Strong of Massachusetts proposed the amendment following the Chisholm ruling to limit the ability of citizens to sue state governments. The amendment negated the ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia and established that citizens of U.S. states or foreign countries could not sue a state under most circumstances.[5]
The Eleventh Amendment says, "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."
In the years following the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could use its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to negate a state's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to correct discriminatory state actions. In the case Cohens v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled the federal judiciary could hear state criminal cases that involved questions of the U.S. Constitution or federal law.[5]
See also
- Nondelegation doctrine
- Separation of powers
- The Taft Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- History of the Supreme Court
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ The case was initially filed in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia under the name Farquhar's Executor v. Georgia.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Justia, "Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)," accessed May 31, 2022
- ↑ New Georgia Encyclopedia, "Edward Telfair," accessed May 31, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 National Constitution Center, "The Eleventh Amendment," accessed June 1, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
