Can a citizen of one state sue another state in federal court?

OCR: 2 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• ACTION (1792-06-30): John Jay, as Chief Justice, decided a case in February 1793 where a citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia in the Supreme Court. He ruled on the validity of Georgia's objection to the court's jurisdiction, determining that a state could be sued by a citizen of another state in federal court. (key quote above) [1]
• BELIEF (1792-06-30): John Jay believed that a citizen of one state can sue another state in federal court, because the Constitution extends the judicial power to such controversies and he considered it honest and useful to provide equal justice. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated): John Jay believed that a citizen of one state can sue another state in federal court, based on the principles of equality and impartiality in the Constitution and the ordinary meaning of the word 'party' in the Constitution's text. "We cannot limit it to one of them in the present case. ... we are to understand them as speaking of both." [3]
• BELIEF (undated): John Jay believed that a State could be suable by individual citizens of another State, based on the design and express declaration of the Constitution. He argued that prior to the Constitution, there was no national tribunal for such disputes, and a common tribunal became desirable for justice and policy. "There was danger that from this source animosities would in time result; and as the transition from animosities to hostilities was frequent in the history of independent States, a common tribunal for the termination of controversies became desirable, from motives both of justice and of policy." [4]
• ACTION (editor's note) (undated; editor's note, not his words): John Jay, as Chief Justice, was part of the Supreme Court that considered and decided on February 18, 1793, that a State was suable by citizens of another State under the Constitution. The action was taken in the case involving executors in South Carolina and the State of Georgia. (key quote above) [5]

What cuts against it

• ACTION (1798): The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, declaring that the judicial power of the court should not extend to suits against a State by a citizen of another State. This amendment reversed the 1793 decision in which John Jay ruled that a State could be sued by a citizen of another State in federal court. "A summary of the case, which was decided February 18th, appears in Claypole's Philadelphia Advertiser for February 20th. The decision excited opposition, not only in Georgia, where the United States Grand Jury presented it as a 'grievance,' but in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other States; and in 1798 it was reversed, by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution." [5]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. John Jay, as Chief Justice, ruled in 1793 that a citizen of one state could sue another state in federal court. "The chief justice pronounced the decision of the court in an elaborate opinion." [1]

2. He based this decision on the Constitution's extension of judicial power to controversies between a State and the citizens of another State. "The constitution expressly extends the judicial power 'to controversies between a State, and the citizens of another State,' and to all cases 'where a. State shall be a party.'" [2]

3. Jay argued that suability is compatible with state sovereignty because all citizens are equal and there are no subjects in the American system. "It is agreed that one free citizen may sue another; the obvious dictates of justice and the purposes of society demanding it." [6]

4. He emphasized that the Constitution's language, such as "party," should be understood in its ordinary and common acceptation, not limited to one side. "We cannot limit it to one of them in the present case. ... we are to understand them as speaking of both." [3]

5. The decision was controversial and led to the Eleventh Amendment in 1798, which reversed the ruling. "The decision excited opposition, not only in Georgia, where the United States Grand Jury presented it as a 'grievance,' but in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and other States; and in 1798 it was reversed, by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution." [5] (inference)

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

John Jay directly addressed the question of whether a citizen of one state can sue another state in federal court. He ruled in favor of such suability, arguing that the Constitution's language and principles of equality and justice support it.

Extrapolation: John Jay believed that the Constitution's judicial power extends to such cases, and that suability is compatible with state sovereignty because all citizens are equal and there are no subjects in the American system.

Competing readings: The Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1798, reversed Jay's decision, indicating that the political and legal landscape changed after his ruling. This shows that while Jay's interpretation was grounded in constitutional principles, it was not universally accepted and was later amended.

Confidence: High, as Jay's position is directly stated in his judicial opinion and supported by his reasoning in multiple passages.