Hans v. Louisiana
 | |
| Hans v. Louisiana | |
| Reference: 134 U.S. 1 | |
| Term: 1890 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: January 22, 1890 Decided: March 3, 1890 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| Joseph Bradley • Melville Fuller • Samuel Freeman Miller • Stephen Johnson Field • Samuel Blatchford • Horace Gray • Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar • David Josiah Brewer | |
| Concurring | |
| John Harlan I | |
Hans v. Louisiana is a case decided on March 3, 1890, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution bars lawsuits by citizens against their own state in federal court. The case concerned whether the state of Louisiana could be sued by one of its citizens in federal court. The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. [1][2]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits by citizens against their own state in federal court. To read more about the impact of Hans v. Louisiana click here.
Background
The state of Louisiana issued consolidated bonds through the acts of the legislature in 1874. Hans, a Louisiana citizen, filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the state in 1884 to recover the amount of certain coupons annexed to state bonds for accrued interest. The state of Louisiana argued that it had sovereign immunity, meaning that state governments are protected from civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and other legal actions except when the state has consented to them. Since the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars suits against a state by an individual of another state, the state of Louisiana argued that it also prevented individuals from suing their own state, thus prohibiting federal courts from entertaining the case.
The district court ruled in favor of the state of Louisiana. Hans appealed the case to the Supreme Court for a review of the decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and dismissed the case.[1][2]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held on January 22, 1890. The case was decided on March 3, 1890.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided unanimously to affirm the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana's decision. Justice Joseph Bradley delivered the opinion of the court and Justice John Harlan I wrote a concurring opinion.[1][3]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice Joseph Bradley, writing for the court, argued that pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution individual citizens of a state are barred from filing suits against another state. This fact had been further established by previous Supreme Court cases such as Louisiana v. Jumel, Hagood v. Southern, and In re Ayers, which Bradley used to establish a precedent that a citizen cannot sue a state.[1]
| “ | That a State cannot be sued by a citizen of another State, or of a foreign state, on the mere ground that the case is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, is clearly established by the decisions of this Court in several recent cases. Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U. S. 711; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. Those were cases arising under the Constitution of the United States, upon laws complained of as impairing the obligation of contracts, one of which was the constitutional amendment of Louisiana, complained of in the present case. Relief was sought against State officers who professed to act in obedience to those laws. This Court held that the suits were virtually against the States themselves, and were consequently violative of the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution, and could not be maintained. It was not denied that they presented cases arising under the Constitution; but, notwithstanding that, they were held to be prohibited by the amendment referred to. [4] | ” |
| —Joseph Bradley, majority opinion in Hans v. Louisiana[1] | ||
To support this argument, Bradley also referred to the Supreme Court's opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, a case that argued the Eleventh Amendment barred citizens of a state from suing another state. Chief Justice James Iredell, writing for the court in Chisholm v. Georgia, argued that states should not be subjected to legal action by individuals but rather by federal courts with proper jurisdiction. Bradley used the argument of Chief Justice Iredell to establish that federal courts cannot hear suits filed by individuals against a state.
| “ | This view of the force and meaning of the Amendment is important. It shows that, on this question of the suability of the States by individuals, the highest authority of this country was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the Court in the decision of the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, and this fact lends additional interest to the able opinion of Mr. Justice Iredell on that occasion. The other justices were more swayed by a close observance of the letter of the Constitution, without regard to former experience and usage; and because the letter said that the judicial power shall extend to controversies 'between a State and citizens of another State;' and 'between a State and foreign states, citizens or subjects,' they felt constrained to see in this language a power to enable the individual citizens of one State, or of a foreign state, to sue another State of the Union in the federal courts. Justice Iredell, on the contrary, contended that it was not the intention to create new and unheard of remedies by subjecting sovereign States to actions at the suit of individuals (which he conclusively showed was never done before), but only, by proper legislation, to invest the federal courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine controversies and cases, between the parties designated, that were properly susceptible of litigation in courts. Looking back from our present standpoint at the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, we do not greatly wonder at the effect which it had upon the country. Any such power as that of authorizing the federal judiciary to entertain suits by individuals against the States had been expressly disclaimed, and even resented, by the great defenders of the Constitution while it was on its trial before the American people. [4] | ” |
| —Joseph Bradley, majority opinion in Hans v. Louisiana[1] | ||
Bradley continued by arguing that the language of the Eleventh Amendment did not intentionally permit citizens to sue their own state in a federal court. He contended that certain aspects of judicial power were not contemplated when writing the Constitution because those actions were unknown at the time. Bradley argued that the language of the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits against a state by an individual of another state, should be applied in all cases where an individual aims to file a suit against a state.
| “ | It seems to us that these views of those great advocates and defenders of the Constitution were most sensible and just, and they apply equally to the present case as to that then under discussion. The letter is appealed to now, as it was then, as a ground for sustaining a suit brought by an individual against a State. The reason against it is as strong in this case as it was in that. It is an attempt to strain the Constitution and the law to a construction never imagined or dreamed of. Can we suppose that, when the Eleventh Amendment was adopted, it was understood to be left open for citizens of a State to sue their own State in the federal courts, while the idea of suits by citizens of other States, or of foreign states, was indignantly repelled? Suppose that Congress, when proposing the Eleventh Amendment, had appended to it a proviso that nothing therein contained should prevent a State from being sued by its own citizens in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, can we imagine that it would have been adopted by the States? The supposition that it would is almost an absurdity on its face. [4] | ” |
| —Joseph Bradley, majority opinion in Hans v. Louisiana[1] | ||
Concurring opinion
Justice John Harlan I, in a concurring opinion, stated that he agreed with the judgment of the court regarding the judicial power of the United States to entertain a lawsuit brought against a state by an individual of that state. Harlan agreed with the overall judgment of the case but did not assent to certain arguments in the majority opinion regarding the use of Chisholm v. Georgia.[1]
| “ | I concur with the Court in holding that a suit directly against a State by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, unless the State itself consents to be sued. Upon this ground alone, I assent to the judgment. But I cannot give my assent to many things said in the opinion. The comments made upon the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia do not meet my approval. They are not necessary to the determination of the present case. Besides, I am of opinion that the decision in that case was based upon a sound interpretation of the Constitution as that instrument then was. [4] | ” |
| —John Harlan I, concurring opinion in Hans v. Louisiana[1] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Sovereign immunity and State sovereignty
Hans v. Louisiana established that the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars suits by citizens against their own state in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment states:
| “ | 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. [4] | ” |
| —Constitution of the United States[5] | ||
The decision of Hans v. Louisiana affirmed the sovereign immunity of states, which protects state governments from civil suits, criminal prosecutions, and other legal actions except when the state has consented to them. The majority opinion in the case references The Federalist Papers, No. 81, written by Alexander Hamilton, which argued that the nature of sovereignty protects states from suits brought by an individual. This assessment was used to establish the argument that the Eleventh Amendment bars all suits by individual citizens against a state in federal court. Hamilton wrote:
| “ | It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal. The circumstances which are necessary to produce an alienation of State sovereignty were discussed in considering the article of taxation, and need not be repeated here. A recurrence to the principles there established will satisfy us, that there is no color to pretend that the State governments would, by the adoption of that plan, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith. The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against States for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident, it could not be done without waging war against the contracting State; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the State governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable. [4] | ” |
| —Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 81 [6] | ||
See also
- The Fuller Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- History of the Supreme Court
- Federalism
- Eleventh Amendment
- Sovereign immunity
- The Federalist Papers, No. 81
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Justia, "Hans v. Louisiana," accessed June 7, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 LexisNexis, "Hans v. Louisiana - 134 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 504 (1890)," accessed June 7, 2022
- ↑ An Introduction to Constitutional Law, "Hans v. State of Louisiana (1890)," accessed June 8, 2022
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Constitution of the United States, "Eleventh Amendment," accessed June 8, 2022
- ↑ The Avalon Project, "The Federalist Papers: No. 81", accessed June 8, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
