Opinion

Hans v. Louisiana

  • 134 U.S. 1
  • 10 S. Ct. 504
  • 33 L. Ed. 842
  • 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1943
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Filed
Mar 3, 1890
Status
Published
Author
HablaN
On the bench
Beadley, Hablan
Cited by
2,659 cases

Questioned by Native Village of Noatak v. Hoffman, 872 F.2d 1384 (1989)

holding that the Eleventh Amendment not only repudiated the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), but restored the original understanding of the persons who drafted the Constitution—in Hamilton's phrase, "the plan of the convention”—that a state could not be sued without its consent

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the Eleventh Amendment not only repudiated the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1793), but restored the original understanding of the persons who drafted the Constitution—in Hamilton's phrase, "the plan of the convention”—that a state could not be sued without its consent
  • recognizing that the FDOC is an entity of the State of Florida and “immune from suit for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment”
  • holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over a suit arising under federal law against a State by a citizen of that State
  • holding that sovereign immunity barred a federal question suit against a State brought by one of its own citizens, even though the text of the Eleventh Amendment only addresses suits brought by citizens of another State

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Questioned by Native Village of Noatak v. Hoffman, 872 F.2d 1384 (1989)

    The continued vitality of Hans is in question, both by reason of the arguments directed against it and by the actual vote in Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways, 483 U.S. 468, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987).
    Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 30, 1989Read it

The opinion

Me, . Justice HablaN

concurring.

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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.