Constitution Annotated

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 — States and Citizens of Other States

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Essays on this page (4)

ArtIII.S2.C1.15 States and Citizens of Other States

ArtIII.S2.C1.15.1 Historical Background on Controversies Between a State and Citizens of Other States

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia1 that cases “between a state and citizens of another state” included those where a state was a party defendant provoked the proposal and ratification of the Eleventh Amendment. Since then, controversies between a state and citizens of another state include only those cases where the state has been a party plaintiff or has consented to be sued.2 As a party plaintiff, a state may bring actions against citizens of other states to protect its legal rights or in some instances as parens patriae to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. In general, the Court has tended to construe strictly this grant of judicial power, which simultaneously comes within its original jurisdiction, by applying the concepts of cases and controversies more rigorously than in cases between private parties.3 Specifically, in these circumstances, the Court holds rigorously to the rule that all the party defendants are citizens of other states4 and adheres to congressional distribution of its original jurisdiction concurrently with that of other federal courts.5

Notes
  1. 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793). ↩
  2. See the discussion under the Eleventh Amendment. ↩
  3. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923); Florida v. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927); New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U.S. 328 (1926). ↩
  4. Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 553 (1871); California v. Southern Pacific Co., 157 U.S. 229 (1895); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U.S. 199 (1902). ↩
  5. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888). ↩

ArtIII.S2.C1.15.2 Jurisdiction Confined to Civil Cases

Cohens v. Virginia1 includes dicta about whether the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction encompasses suits between a state and its own citizens. Long afterwards, the Supreme Court dismissed an action for want of jurisdiction because the record did not show that the corporation against which the suit was brought was chartered in another state.2 Subsequently, the Court has ruled that it will not entertain an action by a state to which its citizens are either parties of record or would have to be joined because of the effect of a judgment upon them.3 In dictum, Chief Justice John Marshall also indicated in Cohens that perhaps no jurisdiction existed over suits by states to enforce their penal laws.4 Sixty-seven years later, the Court wrote this dictum into law in Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co.5 In Pelican, Wisconsin sued a Louisiana corporation to recover a judgment rendered in its favor by one of its own courts. Relying partly on the rule of international law that the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another; partly upon the Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which vested the Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction of controversies of a civil nature where a state is a party; and partly on Justice James Iredell’s dissent in Chisholm v. Georgia,6 where he confined the term “controversies” to civil suits, Justice Horace Gray ruled for the Court that, for purposes of original jurisdiction, “controversies between a State and citizens of another State” are confined to civil suits.7

Notes
  1. 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 398–99 (1821). ↩
  2. Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 553 (1871). ↩
  3. California v. Southern Pacific Co., 157 U.S. 229 (1895); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U.S. 199 (1902). ↩
  4. Cohens, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) at 398–99. ↩
  5. 127 U.S. 265 (1888). ↩
  6. 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 431–32 (1793). ↩
  7. Wisconsin, 127 U.S. at 289–300. ↩

ArtIII.S2.C1.15.3 The State’s Real Interest

Ordinarily, a state may not sue in its name unless it is the real party in interest with real interests. It can sue to protect its own property interests,1 and, if it sues for its own interest as owner of another state’s bonds, rather than as an assignee for collection, jurisdiction exists.2 The Court refused to allow a state to sue when, to avoid Eleventh Amendment restrictions on suing states, the state had passed a statute to collect on another state’s bonds held by one of its citizens.3 Nor can a state sue citizens of other states on behalf of its own citizens to collect claims.4

Notes
  1. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co., 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 559 (1852); Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U.S. 387 (1938); Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159 (1942). ↩
  2. South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286 (1904). ↩
  3. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 (1883). ↩
  4. Oklahoma ex rel. Johnson v. Cook, 304 U.S. 387 (1938). ↩