Chisholm v. Georgia
| Chisholm v. Georgia | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated February 5, 1793 |
||||
| Decided February 18, 1793 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| During the American Revolutionary War, Georgia bought goods from Robert Farquhar, but Georgia did not pay for them as agreed. After the merchant's death, his estate administrator filed a lawsuit against Georgia, which was now a member state of the United States of America. Georgia declined to appear in the Supreme Court, claiming that as a sovereign state, it was not subject to federal court jurisdiction without its own consent. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| To the extent that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for jurisdiction of federal courts in cases between a state and a citizen of another state, the immunity of the states is waived. Therefore, private individuals can sue the states in federal courts. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| US Const. art. III; Judiciary Act of 1789 | ||||
| Repealed by | ||||
| 11. Amendment to the Constitution |
Chisholm versus The State of Georgia (mostly quoted as Chisholm v. Georgia ) is a legal battle decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1793 . It is considered to be one of the first major decisions by the Supreme Court.
background
During the American Revolutionary War in 1777, the former Georgia colony ordered and received goods from South Carolina businessman Robert Farquhar , for which Georgia did not pay as agreed. After the merchant's death, his estate administrator, Alexander Chisholm, brought an action against Georgia in 1792, which was now a member state of the United States of America .
Georgia refused to appear before the Supreme Court, relying on the doctrine of sovereign immunity : As a sovereign state, it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts without its own consent.
The Supreme Court decision
Since the United States Constitution had only been in force for a few years at the time of decision, there was little case law on which the Supreme Court could rely in its decision-making. However, referring to Article 3 Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which limits the sovereign immunity of the states, the Court affirmed that litigation between a state in the United States and a citizen of another state fell under federal jurisdiction.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution expressly provides:
- The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all [...] Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; [...] and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Reactions to the decision
In response to the decision in the Chisholm v. Georgia was introduced and ratified the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1794/95 , according to which such a dispute between a member state of the United States and a citizen of another member state or a foreign state is no longer subject to federal jurisdiction:
- 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.
See also
Web links
literature
- 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.